Why Biden Can’t Use the 14th Amendment to Raise the Debt Ceiling

Why Biden Can’t Use the 14th Amendment to Raise the Debt Ceiling

Politicians... am I right?

The reason this thread was made in the Above Politics forum is because it doesn't matter who is President... or what party he is represents. Until very recently, they could get away with saying all manner of 'incorrect' things... and no one would ever confront them on their nonsense. But then the Information Age dawned and something changed... suddenly they need committees of experts and specialist to preemptively approve their utterances because man... it turns out most politicians are quite ignorant.

Some Senate Democrats are urging President Joe Biden to “use” the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit by executive decree. For example, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) stated:

“The 14th Amendment is not anyone’s first choice. The first choice is that the Republicans raise the debt ceiling because the United States government never, ever, ever, ever defaults on its legal obligations. But if Kevin McCarthy is going to push the United States over a cliff, then it becomes the president’s responsibility to find an alternative path.”

Here's some caustic 'unpacking' (it's a harsh habit of mine.)

The 14th Amendment is not a "choice" - it's a law. Apparently the sage wisdom of Legislator Warren is opening the argument with a basic misunderstanding of multidimensional proportions... 1) that the way to curtail and control debt for the nation isn't to control spending, but to just increase the credit line ad infinitum... 2) that "the United States government never, ever, ever, ever defaults on its legal obligations." equates the debt they incur with a legal (not financial) obligation... think on that... her nation exists under the largess of a creditor...... and finally 3) that demanding we follow the law as it exists means the "president has to find a way" NOT TO.

She really destroyed her own position in just few sentences.

As a former law professor and a senator for more than 10 years, Warren almost certainly knows that keeping the current debt ceiling doesn’t cause default. It merely forces the government to run a balanced budget—something the government should be doing anyway.

And all Warren needs to do is read the 14th Amendment to learn that it gives the president no power to “use” it to create more debt.

One of the hallmarks of our political structure is that:

The principle that a government’s financial powers are lodged in a representative legislature rather than the executive is central to our political system. Many people died for that ideal.

Executives, Dictators, Kings, and Ministers have destroyed the countries they should have been protecting by spending them into oblivion (or redistributing wealth selfishly.) No one leader's whim should simply have such power... History has taught this lesson over and over.

Perhaps they understand that "currency" is infinite when it's manufactured by fiat and they somehow convince themselves "it's just a number, if we need money we can just make more." Or maybe they feel since it is all virtual its not really "real."

The party has through Warren telegraphed what they want to do... and they will pretend that the 14th Amendment actually makes it OK to do what they want... namely, extend the credit line... 'raise the debt limit' ...

The 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, soon after the Civil War. It’s the longest amendment ever adopted, because it addressed a multiplicity of issues. One reason for the amendment was to ensure that future Congresses, even if dominated by members from former Confederate states, would honor the Union Civil War debt.

The amendment has five sections. Sections 4 and 5 are relevant to our discussion. Here’s the pertinent language:

“Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned …
“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Notice what this language says:

- The validity of U.S. public debt shall not be questioned. This means that the federal government may not use any pretext for refusing to pay off debt instruments, such as savings bonds and Treasury bills.
- The amendment grants Congress the power to pass laws to ensure our debt obligations are met.

Now notice what this language doesn’t say:

- It doesn’t say the government must borrow more to pay off existing debt; Congress may meet its obligations from existing revenue.
- It doesn’t say Congress must change legal limits on borrowing.

Although it grants power to Congress, it grants none to the president—other than to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. This is because the Constitution requires that the president “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3). One of those laws the president must enforce is the national debt limit.

I wonder if anyone ever actually read this (I mean other than an "associate" advisor)

One of the talking points among those who want to raise the debt limit is that failure to do so would be a “calamity.” Or so claims Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. From experience, we know this isn’t true.

Of course the banker says you MUST pay us... evoking 'calamity' without mentioning that the bank would make damned sure there was one... as they've done throughout history here ("bail us out or you'll die") and in other countries (economic hit-man, anyone?)... repeatedly... "The spice must flow..."

Anyway this is about us being shown something that says "I don't have this power" while proclaiming it says "I have this power." Most politicians do this, as they have for generations... but as of a few decades ago they seem to be not willing to accept that we aren't fooled anymore. And fewer of their own partisan are choosing to be fooled anymore...

Politicians..., am I right?

a reply to: Maxmars

And yet, all bets are off. We are no longer governed by the rule of law, are we?

Depressing, but largely true, I'm afraid.

a reply to: loam

Our problem has now become allowing them to tell us what we think...

We obviously think that the 14th Amendment was just a whim... a passing fancy of out-of-touch colonial-era thinkers...

"Joe will know best... we know he'll get us out of this mess! Law be damned."

This marks the second time in two days, I have encountered a journalist article from the Los Angeles Times directly relevant to my thread, which is simultaneously starkly and directly contradicting what I believe is the optimal interpretation of the subject matter. (the other is in Why Was EcoHealth Alliance’s Grant Reinstated Despite Group’s Apparent Failure to Comply...?) The fact that it is the same author raises my hackles, but also impresses me that this journalist is paying attention to the same things I am.

I will not directly attack this article. I will leave it to you to asses the validity of the assertions made... and hope that you might find a moment to compare and/or contrast the two opinions here... for my education.

Column: Here’s why the debt ceiling is not only stupid — it’s unconstitutional

I will cheat a bit on my intention and add that the link name (url) for this article includes... "please-let-this-be-my-last-column-about-the-stupid-debt-ceiling," which I find absolutely hilarious, since "not talking about something anymore" is a now valid proposition for today's journalists.

Suffice to say the article while expansive, is simple... "Increasing the debt ceiling" is good in a heroic way. "Everybody I cite says so." Validity confirmed.

I should not go on... it wouldn't be fair to the L.A. Times' posture as a renowned journal of the day.