Today's 14th Amendment question-of-the-day!

[Grins]

Today's 14th Amendment question-of-the-day!

Assume:
- President Biden invokes the 14th Amendment.
- The Reich-wing's Outrage-industrial complex™" goes ballistic and takes it all the way to the Supreme Court.

At the Court the Solicitor General reads the part of the Amendment that says:

'"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law (...) shall not be questioned."

Your question: "Will the Court's six Reich-wing Scalia Constitutional "textualists" dispute that?

Or is "The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it?" - Justice Kagan, West Virginia v. EPA, 30 June 2022.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

1. My question is

“ The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law (...) shall not be questioned."

Based on the above, is any debt in excess of the statutory debt ceiling actually authorized by law?

[Kablooie]

4. Any spending that was authorized by Congress would be covered.

There is nothing in there mentioning a debt limit so I don't see how that could be an issue.

[Timewas]

10. Congress

Congress is the one in charge of okaying debt,we will surpass the debt ceiling by paying previously authorized debts that congress okayed.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. You may be righr

But authorizing spending is not the same as authorizing debt.

[Timewas]

14. if you

They authorize a budget, which allows the government to spend the money, the debt comes when the government sells bonds to raise the money, the debt comes due when the bonds come due. That payment must be paid on time or the government is in default...the bonds were sold because congress authorized it.

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. It doesn't even have to be a maturing bond not being redeemed.

A mere missed coupon (interest) payment would trigger the same thing.

Currently the Treasury offers 2, 5, 10 and 30 year paper with coupons that pay biannual interest payments.

[FBaggins]

2. Two responses

There is no "invoke" button in 14A. The president would necessarily be saying "I know this violates the law, but I don't think that law is constitutional"... AND would be saying that he could issue new debt on his own without congressional delegation of such a power.

At the Court the Solicitor General reads the part of the Amendment that says:

'"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law (...) shall not be questioned."

The court would respond with "This court agree that the public debt of the US shall not be questioned and agrees that existing debt must be honored... but Congress budgeting spending in excess of revenues does not constitute new debt or an approval of new debt."

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. But budget authorizations are also laws, are they not?

SCOTUS has already ruled that the president can’t veto specific expenditures once authorized.

If a budget authorization doesn’t also implicitly authorize the encumbering of required debt to execute the budget, isn’t the budget itself unconstitutional?

[FBaggins]

8. Grammar doesn't work that way

It's that debts that are authorized by law must not be questioned... not that anything authorized by law becomes a debt.

But budget authorizations are also laws, are they not?

Well... no. But you probably mean appropriations (which are).

SCOTUS has already ruled that the president can’t veto specific expenditures once authorized.

And he can't. But saying "You'll have to give me the money to do that before I can execute" is not vetoing a bill.

[Igel]

9. But they are spending bills.

If there are revenues adequate for the purpose there's no point in issuing debt.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Remember that the reason for the debt ceiling is simple: When Congress needed to authorize debt, they'd pass the spending bill and then a separate bill authorizing the issuance of bonds. Then the debt needed was too common, and so it was streamlined.

Analogy: Many years ago you'd need to open a credit account or arrange for paying off debt at each store, each restaurant, each bar.--and that would usually have to be paid off monthly, unless the agreement stipulated a longer time frame. That's Congress, pre-debt ceiling.

Now I have a credit card. There's a nice cushy credit limit. That's a debt ceiling. I can authorize my kid to spend money on a new computer, up to a certain amount, but if the credit card only has $654 left on it and he wants a good gaming computer, my authorization for him to spend up to a certain amount (if there's funding available) doesn't constitute power of attorney to get the CC company to increase the credit limit. I want to incur more debt about that debt ceiling, I need to authorize additional debt.

Note that there are actually *three* ways that the 14A could be invoked. It can be invoked for the Executive to claim authority for authorizing a new law, originating with the Executive and passed entirely by the Executive to issue public debt. Or it could be invoked to claim authority for increasing taxes. Or it could be invoked to claim authority for revising the spending bills. Not sure one is preferable, given the language of the Constitution.

Of course, the 'public debt' is the issuance of debt to the public explicitly authorized by Congress. That's not the payment due in 30 days for buying staples for the local IRS office. (In any event, the office supply company wouldn't be "the public.&quot

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. I think you're confused

The executive branch cannot, under any circumstances, create new laws, nor can it increase taxes, or revise spending bills.

No amendment, including the 14th, grants those powers.

[Shermann]

3. A Lannister Always Pays His Debts

Period. There are no ifs ands or buts.

The United States of America? Well, in that case "it's complicated".

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. The more important question:

If SCOTUS rules against the constitution, will Biden ignore their illegitimate ruling?

[Polybius]

20. No

Only Andrew Jackson did that, and maybe Lincoln.

[Kablooie]

7. Very little question that they will dispute it.

An extreme originalist interpretation might be used.

The public debt clause was put in place to prevent the Confederacy's war and emancipation debts from impacting the reunited country.
Nowadays there are no Confederacy war and emancipation debts so it has no validity today.

I know it's far fetched but whenever it suits their needs, they pull out an extremely narrow interpretation of the Constitution, limiting the meaning to only what the situation was when the amendment was written.

Their interpretation of the second amendment goes even further. They decided to completely ignore the first limiting clause of the sentence in order to decide the second part has no limitations.

[Timewas]

11. Really?

In reading the 14th I see no reference to anything but "the united states" no mention anywhere in there of the confederacy.Regardless of the intent at the time it is not stated as such.

[Kablooie]

19. They can bring up original context even if it isn't documented in the Constitution...

If it serves their needs.

That's the reason they say they support originalism.
It gives them a whole basket full of options to pick and choose from.
If the original context doesn't help them it is ignored.
But if it allows them to make controversial decisions, it is considered sacrosanct.

[marybourg]

15. Except in the case of well-regulated militias and semi-automatic weapons.

[Zeitghost]

16. At most

I could see the 14th being used to direct incoming funds to the treasury towards servicing the current debt and paying invoices and payroll for services and goods already rendered during a shutdown. I don't see how it could ever be used to mandate additional debt to be taken on.

[onenote]

17. I think a textualist might read the word "validity" to mean "validity"

and conclude that not being able to pay a debt doesn't render the debt invalid or nullify it. If you don't pay your credit card debt, it doesn't mean its invalid -- it's still a valid debt that you owe.

Moreover, a textualist might also look at Article I, Section 8, which confers the power to borrow money on Congress and decide that it means that the executive branch can't borrow more than it has authorized. Authorizing spending is not the same as authorizing borrowing.