Senate Democrats are proposing that the terrorist Republican blackmail, holding the good faith and credit of the United States hostage to their demands to legalize more class warfare against the the American people, violates the US Constitution. On further study, I agree. While there is no evidence that this notion has gained traction in the White House, it could rightly be used to defang the Republican Party over the debt ceiling.
First, here is the excerpt from the 14th Amendment in question:
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.
Inserted from <Wikipedia>
That appears self-evident to me. Here’s more from Ryan Grim.
Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment.
"This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "I don’t think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I’ll tell you that it’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?’"
By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann covered this in detail. In the first segment Keith interviews Ryan Grim, the author of the above article.
In the second, Keith covers the background and interviews author Jeff Madrick.
To me, it appears that the negotiations are going poorly at best, so I hope that Obama will adopt this alternative, not sign off on Republican demands. I don’t know about you, but this morning, I’m calling the White House. (202) 456-1414
14 Responses to “Is the Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
C’mon you know Obama has already caved in to whatever McConnel and Boehner have told him to do. He’ll announce it today at 11:30.
You were wrong.
I hope you’re wrong about this, TWM.
It would be really nice if he announced his intention to ignore their demands. I’ll be watching.
…….still hold’n breath…… 😳
“Who was that combative president? The guy who came out swinging against tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, for big oil companies, for hedge fund managers, for corporate jet owners?”~~Howard Kurtz from The Daily Beast. 😳 Whooooooooose! Feel’n better already! 😈
I wouldn’t go that far.
Needless to say, I have it covered and will post as the top story.
Teabaggers and republicans should love this rationale. After all, they are all about the literal interpretation of the Constitution. What could be more clear than “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.”
It is unconstitutional to default on our debt.
Secondly, they want constitutional justification for congressional actions. Here is it — the 14th Amendment.
Great argument, but for Republicans, convenience always trumps Constitution.
Good Point- but do you really think the tea baggers care about what is constitutional ??
They say they do. Oh yea! Teabaggers and republicans lie all the time.
Exactly!
Let me get this straight. You actually want Dino Obama to behave like a Democrat, and not just talk like one???
Well, good luck with that!
Personally, I would rather vote out all DINOs, especially DINO Obama in next year’s Democratic Primaries.
Vote only for Progressives, because a vote for the lesser of two unconstitutional debt questioners (DINO vs. Republican) is still a vote for the Gilded Fascist Elite.
Kevin, you’re in a fantasy world. If Bernie Sanders were to mount a primary challenge, I would support him, but he has already sworn that off. Nobody else could possibly challenge Obama with any chance of success. You are going to have a two choices in 11/2012: Obama or a Republican. Any vote other than Obama is a vote for the Republican.