The trial balloon notion of Using the 14th Amendment to avoid a default

[BackAgain]

I believe that our President had previously declared that he would consider it unconstitutional to use the 14th Amendment to avoid a default.

But, now, he’s considering it as a possible legitimate tool in the arsenal.

Could Biden use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling?

President Joe Biden on Sunday said he believes he has the legal right to invoke the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to raise the federal government's $31.4 trillion debt ceiling but does not have the time to do so.

www.reuters.com

Plus, of course, it’s a dishonestly premised question in the first place:

Opinion | What the 14th Amendment Really Says

Biden must pay interest on the debt or violate the U.S. Constitution.

www.wsj.com

 

[excalibur]

Only Congress has the power of the purse, Biden has no authority to raise the debt ceiling, none.

 

[Esdraelon]

Plus, of course, it’s a dishonestly premised question in the first place:

If that party has any skill at which it shines - dishonesty is surely the one.

 

[Augustine_]

I hope republicans burn it all down. Let their voters get a taste of what they've been voting for.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

The 14th doesn't give him any right to arbitrarily raise the debt ceiling but it does say Congress has the responsibility to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

Even if you somehow stretch the meaning of the 4th clause to executive territory, which alone would be outrageous, it only allows him to pay interest on the debt, not incur more debt.

Use the tax revenues to pay the debt & figure out the spending priorities for the rest

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[nomadic5]

I believe that our President had previously declared that he would consider it unconstitutional to use the 14th Amendment to avoid a default.

But, now, he’s considering it as a possible legitimate tool in the arsenal.

Could Biden use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling?

President Joe Biden on Sunday said he believes he has the legal right to invoke the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to raise the federal government's $31.4 trillion debt ceiling but does not have the time to do so.

www.reuters.com

Plus, of course, it’s a dishonestly premised question in the first place:

Opinion | What the 14th Amendment Really Says

Biden must pay interest on the debt or violate the U.S. Constitution.

www.wsj.com

i have a Q about this legal cncept of "standing"

How come the US as a whole never seems to have a standing on any case that obvioiusly affects the entire country? I mean some of those cases of recent vintage are truly no-brainers vis a vis standing (election fraud accusations 2020 come to mind)

 

[kaz]

I believe that our President had previously declared that he would consider it unconstitutional to use the 14th Amendment to avoid a default.

But, now, he’s considering it as a possible legitimate tool in the arsenal.

Could Biden use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling?

President Joe Biden on Sunday said he believes he has the legal right to invoke the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to raise the federal government's $31.4 trillion debt ceiling but does not have the time to do so.

www.reuters.com

Plus, of course, it’s a dishonestly premised question in the first place:

Opinion | What the 14th Amendment Really Says

Biden must pay interest on the debt or violate the U.S. Constitution.

www.wsj.com

Democrats believe that the Constitution includes the power to do anything the fuck they want. Which makes having a Constitution by definition pointless

 

[nomadic5]

The 14th doesn't give him any right to arbitrarily raise the debt ceiling but it does say Congress has the responsibility to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

Even if you somehow stretch the meaning of the 4th clause to executive territory, which alone would be outrageous, it only allows him to pay interest on the debt, not incur more debt.

Use the tax revenues to pay the debt & figure out the spending priorities for the rest

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

I always thought the HOUSE was the govt body that had control over spending. I don't think the president should be able to veto spending / cutting bills but that's just me, I guess...

 

[kaz]

i have a Q about this legal cncept of "standing"

How come the US as a whole never seems to have a standing on any case that obvioiusly affects the entire country? I mean some of those cases of recent vintage are truly no-brainers vis a vis standing (election fraud accusations 2020 come to mind)

The Supreme Court has made standing a joke by declaring that taxpayers don't have standing to challenge tax laws or taxes. Which means no one does. The SCOTUS has been a poor protector of our freedoms, they suck at it

 

[johngaltshrugged]

I hope republicans burn it all down. Let their voters get a taste of what they've been voting for.

So reducing the rate of govt growth is burning it all down?

Did your clot shots figure out that deep thinking wisdom for you?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I hope republicans burn it all down. Let their voters get a taste of what they've been voting for.

They've both burned it down. They sacked made their millions and sold out.

 

[kaz]

I always thought the HOUSE was the govt body that had control over spending. I don't think the president should be able to veto spending / cutting bills but that's just me, I guess...

We should have tax increases and spending increases only with zero based budgeting and supermajorities required for passage. No Federal money should be taken from one citizen and given to another and there should be no direct taxes

 

[Augustine_]

So reducing the rate of govt growth is burning it all down?

Did your clot shots figure out that deep thinking wisdom for you?

Reducing the rate of government growth? We must not be talking about the same republicans.

 

[BackAgain]

i have a Q about this legal cncept of "standing"

How come the US as a whole never seems to have a standing on any case that obvioiusly affects the entire country? I mean some of those cases of recent vintage are truly no-brainers vis a vis standing (election fraud accusations 2020 come to mind)

It is often easier (albeit sometimes quite illegitimate) for a court to say “we cannot determine this dispute because” the plaintiff has no “standing” than it would be to delve into the thickets of a perfectly valid case.

Similarly, courts can say; gee sorry. We lack jurisdiction. Sometimes it’s true. Sometimes it isn’t.

Or sometimes the courts can say, “gee, we have this here doctrine of ‘political question’ which denies us jurisdiction.”

And one of my personal favorites (especially in some election disputes), “gee, this is a justiciable case — except you filed it too soon (or too late).”

 

[BackAgain]

Democrats believe that the Constitution includes the power to do anything the fuck they want. Which makes having a Constitution by definition pointless

It certainly puts the Republicans on notice that they are going to have to start properly defending the Constitution. Sadly, they frequently don’t bother.

 

[nomadic5]

It is often easier (albeit sometimes quite illegitimate) for a court to say “we cannot determine this dispute because” the plaintiff has no “standing” than it would be to delve into the thickets of a perfectly valid case.

Similarly, courts can say; gee sorry. We lack jurisdiction. Sometimes it’s true. Sometimes it isn’t.

Or sometimes the courts can say, “gee, we have this here doctrine of ‘political question’ which denies us jurisdiction.”

And one of my personal favorites (especially in some election disputes), “gee, this is a justiciable case — except you filed it too soon (or too late).”

yes, I have seen this ... well, I have seemed to see it.. one never knows what the justices see and what we do not, but I have often suspected things were just as you say.

can we spell Politics as Usual?

 

[nomadic5]

It certainly puts the Republicans on notice that they are doing to have to start properly defending the Constitution. Sadly, they frequently don’t bother.

and none of the dims do

so its no wonder some of us think the US died some time ago...

 

[nomadic5]

The Supreme Court has made standing a joke by declaring that taxpayers don't have standing to challenge tax laws or taxes. Which means no one does. The SCOTUS has been a poor protector of our freedoms, they suck at it

excellent point there...

The worst thing that could ever happen to a democratic Republic happened in 2020

I just wonder if it didn't happen in other elections as well, but even dimrats see what happened (likely happened, if nothing else) in 2020.

I hear something like 40% of Americans say the election was messed up (or whatever...)

I tend to think it is more than that. Anyone with half a brain...

Surely, 60% of Americans have at least half ?

 

[kaz]

It certainly puts the Republicans on notice that they are doing to have to start properly defending the Constitution. Sadly, they frequently don’t bother.

Yes, Republicans suck

 

[petro]

Here is what will actually happen...

Again.

Then we kick the can down the road again in a few short months, then again and again...
ad nauseam.

Pathetic.