Debates
30 Jun 11
30 Jun 11
US Constitution, 14 Amendment, Section 4:
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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
(Emphasis supplied)
Legal scholar Garrett Epps, apparently "strictly construing" the Constitution has stated: "It's not hard to argue that the Constitution places both payments on the debt and payments owed to groups like Social Security recipients ... above the vagaries of Congressional politics."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/30/news/economy/debt_ceiling_constitution/
Interesting point of view. Does the language mean what it says i.e. that obligations incurred pursuant to law MUST be paid? Is a debt limit that purports to make payment of obligations optional on Congressional authorization of borrowing a violation of the Constitution? If not, what does the language mean?
30 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderInteresting question. Do you know when Congress began creating a debt ceiling? If it is simply raised every time it is reached, then of what use is it? When money is fiat, and has no intrinsic value, what does a limit mean? We can put in a dollar amount, but even in a decade that dollar amount isn't real.
US Constitution, 14 Amendment, Section 4:
[b]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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any de ...[text shortened]... rization of borrowing a violation of the Constitution? If not, what does the language mean?[/b]
30 Jun 11
Originally posted by normbenign1917. Before that, Congress approved specific loan and bond issues on an individual basis. http://www.executivegov.com/2011/04/5-things-you-should-know-about-the-debt-ceiling/
Interesting question. Do you know when Congress began creating a debt ceiling? If it is simply raised every time it is reached, then of what use is it? When money is fiat, and has no intrinsic value, what does a limit mean? We can put in a dollar amount, but even in a decade that dollar amount isn't real.
Money, by its nature, is fiat and without intrinsic value.
30 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIt sounds like it means that the debt can be collected. It doesn't appear to me to mean that Congress can't establish a debt ceiling. If Congress can itself determine how much federal money is spent, it seems to me that they ought also be able to cap its own deficit spending.
US Constitution, 14 Amendment, Section 4:
[b]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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any de ...[text shortened]... rization of borrowing a violation of the Constitution? If not, what does the language mean?[/b]
30 Jun 11
Originally posted by sh76Can it set its debt limit at $0 and thus not pay any outstanding obligations or future ones incurred under existing law?
It sounds like it means that the debt can be collected. It doesn't appear to me to mean that Congress can't establish a debt ceiling. If Congress can itself determine how much federal money is spent, it seems to me that they ought also be able to cap its own deficit spending.
30 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauder" Money, by its nature, is fiat and without intrinsic value."
1917. Before that, Congress approved specific loan and bond issues on an individual basis. http://www.executivegov.com/2011/04/5-things-you-should-know-about-the-debt-ceiling/
Money, by its nature, is fiat and without intrinsic value.
Paper money perhaps. Even paper money when backed by some tangible commodity (gold, silver, titanium, oil) isn't fiat. Fiat money is Federal Reserve notes, based on debt, and redeemable for nothing, and designated as legal tender.
Again, if a debt ceiling is routinely raised it isn't really a ceiling. It is a deception. If the purpose of a ceiling is to place a limit on debt, such as a credit card limit, it would make sense to stick with it.
I'll have to think more about the Constitutionality of a ceiling. I think I prefer the older method, as more responsible.
30 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderno, legal debts cannot be questioned.
Can it set its debt limit at $0 and thus not pay any outstanding obligations or future ones incurred under existing law?
if they set the debt limit to $0 (thus destroying the economy), they would still have to pay the debt, but they could no longer burrow any more.
30 Jun 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSince the start of debt ceiling legislation, has anyone suggested zero as an option, or failing to honor debts? Until fairly recently, nobody even considered not routinely raising the limit like a spendthrift shopaholic.
Can it set its debt limit at $0 and thus not pay any outstanding obligations or future ones incurred under existing law?
30 Jun 11
Originally posted by normbenignSuch "tangible commodities" have no intrinsic value either. You're merely kicking the can down the road.
" Money, by its nature, is fiat and without intrinsic value."
Paper money perhaps. Even paper money when backed by some tangible commodity (gold, silver, titanium, oil) isn't fiat. Fiat money is Federal Reserve notes, based on debt, and redeemable for nothing, and designated as legal tender.
Again, if a debt ceiling is routinely raised it isn't re ...[text shortened]... he Constitutionality of a ceiling. I think I prefer the older method, as more responsible.
01 Jul 11
Originally posted by normbenignThat's irrelevant to the discussion sh76 and I are having. He seems to have asserted that Congress had a plenary power to set the debt ceiling as it sees fit. I'm asking if that's what he really meant to say; a power to set a debt ceiling implies a power to set it at whatever level Congress chooses.
Since the start of debt ceiling legislation, has anyone suggested zero as an option, or failing to honor debts? Until fairly recently, nobody even considered not routinely raising the limit like a spendthrift shopaholic.