29 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyI will wait for someone more constitutionally knowledgeable, but venture that it might mean already incurred debt obligations that have been authorized. It might also hinge on whether "debt" here means some dollar amount, or actual obligations to pay. The issue might be whether the legal authorization of limits to the former (the debt ceiling) renders the actual payment of already incurred debt obligations, such as interest and principal, as well as debts incurred for the payment of pensions, prohibited--or whether nonpayment, even if more money debt needs to be issued, would be a constitutional violation.
Wait wait wait. It says ...
The validity of the public debt of the United States, [b]authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.
How can new debt be issued without Congressional approval and still be authorized by law?[/b]
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by vistesdI imagine this sort of thing would be expedited.
How long would it take for the question to be finalized by the courts? I think we are talking about acting a priori, and letting the courts make their determination ex post facto. What would they likely do--issue a cease and desist order?
EDIT: With the deadline close, waiting for a court determination would make the whole thing moot.
Bush v. Gore took all of a few days.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyWe're talking principally about paying debts that already exist.
Wait wait wait. It says ...
The validity of the public debt of the United States, [b]authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.
How can new debt be issued without Congressional approval and still be authorized by law?[/b]
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaAnything CAN happen, but impeachment was not meant for doing things that are later rules unconstitutional. Impeachment was meant for thing like, you know, lying about having sex with interns and covering up botched burglaries.
If he does and it's ruled unconstitutional, can't he be impeached for it?
I'm being facetious with the last part of course. But it would take a major stretch to call paying government debt in defiance of Congress a "high crime and misdemeanor."
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76I'm no specialist, but I'd imagine that a President doing things for which he has no authority to would be a major reason for possible impeachment.
Anything CAN happen, but impeachment was not meant for doing things that are later rules unconstitutional. Impeachment was meant for thing like, you know, lying about having sex with interns and covering up botched burglaries.
I'm being facetious with the last part of course. But it would take a major stretch to call paying government debt in defiance of Congress a "high crime and misdemeanor."
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, but the argument is that failing to live up to obligations based on debt that already legally exists is unconstitutional. If rolling it over into new debt is required by the old legally generated debt, the 14th Amendment would seem to apply.
...by rolling it over with the emission of new debt. Or else the debt ceiling wouldn't be an issue.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaPresidential acts and congressional acts are overturned as unconstitutional all the time. No President has ever been impeached nor has any Congressman ever been prosecuted for taking an official act that was later declared unconstitutional.
I'm no specialist, but I'd imagine that a President doing things for which he has no authority to would be a major reason for possible impeachment.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76I see, so he would be able to emit only up to the amount required for rolling over the debt? If I'm reading you correctly, then this would allow an increase of the ceiling only by the amount of interest to be paid on the newly emitted bonds?
Yes, but the argument is that failing to live up to obligations based on debt that already legally exists is unconstitutional. If rolling it over into new debt is required by the old legally generated debt, the 14th Amendment would seem to apply.
This wouldn't be enough to avoid a strong contraction of expenditure, I think.