Such an argument is absurd...and here is why.
The 14th Amendment states:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
So what does this mean...does it mean that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional? I would say not in any way....the amendment itself clearly states that such debt must be authorized by law. The Constitution is fairly clear on who is able to borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article 1 Section 8), and such power does not rest with the Executive.
Additionally, Article 1 Section 7 adds more clarity to the point by stating "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Again, meaning that the Executive simply cannot decide how much money it spends...that power clearly lies with Congress.
So, it seems fair to argue that debt, that has been authorized by law, (ie Congress) will not be questioned. It seems a stretch to me to argue that if Congress refuses (at the moment) to authorize more debt, that the Executive somehow has the power to do it for them, especially given the language is Article 1 Section 8.
Additionally, failure to raise the debt ceiling does not automatically equate to default. The Treasury Secretary is able to designate revenue first for debt payments (even if no debt limit raise occurs), and would be able to make payments, resulting in cuts in other places.
It is the ultimate false choice to argue that either Congress must cave and raise the debt limit, or the president must act dictatorially, as the Constitution allegedly authorizes him to do...but that is the argument we keep hearing. Sad really.
That is the argument...since long ago...Regan made it. And how long do you think we can basically try to not pay our bills by paying one credit card with the other and hoping it does not catch up?
And as for the debt...would not most legal spending by the Government..be backed by the legal backing to spend it? Even specifically points out Pensions..so if congress did have the money to fund pensions, would not the President be forced to pay for them somehow...as they can not be questioned.
Garrett Epps, a legal professor for U of Oregon , and Bruce Bartlett who has worked for Ron Paul, Domestic policy adviser for Regan, and treasury offical under HW Bush...Hardly a Obama loving pro Liberal list there saying it...making me think there could be some validity to this case...as for if it would stand up to the supreme court. who knows. this is a very political SC in my view so it could be a coin flip...
I have not been able to look it over to much, to busy the last week...but its a interesting twist to the debate...And sad how it took 2 pages for someone who did not agree...to actually list a reason why...
As for the we can just keep paying bills past the debt ceiling.. how many days after we pass...will be bounce checks? If you don't know this ...then do you really want to play the game and hope your right and risk the credit rating of the US and the world econ on it?
his country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequences of a default -- or even the serious prospect of default -- by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns. Regan.
"A February 2011 report by nonpartisan Congressional Research Service -- which Geithner cited -- found that "if the debt limit is reached and Treasury is no longer able to issue federal debt ... the federal government would have to eliminate all spending on discretionary programs, cut nearly 70% of outlays for mandatory programs, increase revenue collection by nearly two-thirds, or take some combination of those actions in the second half of FY 2011 (April through September 30, 2011) in order to avoid increasing the debt limit."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/geithner-warns-johnson-on_n_886929.html
what scares me most is that I think republicans are going to play chicken and not move and drive the car off the cliff...because they have fooled them self into thinking its not really that bad if they do..because they don't want to face the politics of having to raise taxes or move a inch on what there position is...Better to destroy the nations credit, the budge a inch.
