Does the 14th Amendment compel the U.S. to pay it's debts?

[techs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

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.



Since every U.S. budget was "authorized by law" does "validity" mean the U.S. must pay its debts?

 

[TerryMathews]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

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.



Since every U.S. budget was "authorized by law" does "validity" mean the U.S. must pay its debts?

There hasn't been a US budget since 2008.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It depends how you see it.

The US government can just use FED to print so much money that you can repay all debt. Meaning that the 14th amendment as such holds no value. Nomatter how you translate it in terms of state bankuptcy.

 

[techs]

There hasn't been a US budget since 2008.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

[TerryMathews]

Really? Please elaborate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Although I was mistaken, there hasn't been a budget since 2011. My fault for taking the "Republicans won't pass one of Obama's budgets because of racism" people at their word.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Really? Please elaborate.

congress has not passed any official budgetary document in a while. instead, they pass "continuing resolutions" that are essentially temporary appropriations.

edit: terry matthews beat me to it..only since 2011..still seems like its been a while.

 

[Ryan]

There hasn't been a US budget since 2008.

It doens't really matter since continuing resolutions have the same effect as a budget - while the money has not been officially appropriated by regular means, Congress has still authorized the spending - it is valid debt.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys all know that federal budgets don't really do anything, right? They are not binding in any way. The appropriations bills are where the real budgeting is.

It is my sincere hope that Obama circumvents Congress on the debt ceiling. It seems like he will have a number of different routes he can take to do so. Someone has to take this bomb out of the Republicans' hands because they aren't responsible enough to have it.

From a purely common sense perspective the debt ceiling nonsense doesn't fly anyway. Congress has directed the president to spend X dollars through appropriations bills. He must comply with that. Congress then denies him the ability to spend the money that they have compelled him to spend. They are basically giving incoherent and mutually exclusive commands. There's no particular reason why the debt ceiling law should take precedence over any of the other laws Congress has passed, so why follow that one and not the others?

 

[TerryMathews]

It doens't really matter since continuing resolutions have the same effect as a budget - while the money has not been officially appropriated by regular means, Congress has still authorized the spending - it is valid debt.

I'm sorry, I was pointing out the inaccuracy in techs post.

To the point of the 14th, Geithner made a similar point during the first debt ceiling showdown. President Obama evidently didn't find it credible as he reacted as though this line of attack wasn't applicable.

 

[Incorruptible]

You guys all know that federal budgets don't really do anything, right? They are not binding in any way. The appropriations bills are where the real budgeting is.

It is my sincere hope that Obama circumvents Congress on the debt ceiling. It seems like he will have a number of different routes he can take to do so. Someone has to take this bomb out of the Republicans' hands because they aren't responsible enough to have it.

From a purely common sense perspective the debt ceiling nonsense doesn't fly anyway. Congress has directed the president to spend X dollars through appropriations bills. He must comply with that. Congress then denies him the ability to spend the money that they have compelled him to spend. They are basically giving incoherent and mutually exclusive commands. There's no particular reason why the debt ceiling law should take precedence over any of the other laws Congress has passed, so why follow that one and not the others?

Thats nice, make him even more of a dictator and screw more Americans. Please tell me you aren't serious

 

[Matt1970]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Although I was mistaken, there hasn't been a budget since 2011. My fault for taking the "Republicans won't pass one of Obama's budgets because of racism" people at their word.

2010 was the last time we had a budget get through the house and senate.

 

[TerryMathews]

2010 was the last time we had a budget get through the house and senate.

Yes, to cover FY 2011.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Fascistic Framers of the 14th probably intended to give the Executive the power to raise the debt ceiling on his own, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

It's actually the wrong thing to do, because Dr. Paul does what is moral and what is right.

 

[Incorruptible]

The Fascistic Framers of the 14th probably intended to give the Executive the power to raise the debt ceiling on his own, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

It's actually the wrong thing to do, because Dr. Paul does what is moral and what is right.

I agree about Ron Paul, If he wasn't screwed over then he could have fixed all this mess.

 

[ivwshane]

You fucking idiots don't even know what the debt ceiling is, if you did you wouldn't make such retarded comments.

 

[TerryMathews]

You fucking idiots don't even know what the debt ceiling is, if you did you wouldn't make such retarded comments.

Physician, heal thyself.

Most of the comments have been on topic. Until yours.

 

[Doppel]

You fucking idiots don't even know what the debt ceiling is, if you did you wouldn't make such retarded comments.

Yikes, are you this angry in all your threads?

 

[techs]

I'm sorry, I was pointing out the inaccuracy in techs post.

Which you didn't really do, since we have had a budget up until very recently. Though, of course, the 14th doesn't mention the budget at all but talks about US debt.

And I agree to the two mutually exclusive conditions. First you pass a law saying the President must spend the money, then you deny him the ability to borrow the money to pay for what he had to spend.

And you can add that Congress has violated the 14th amendment by not approving the debt ceiling.

It's a situation worthy of HAL 9000

 

[Farang]

President Obama is right to avoid using the 14th amendment. It would be a huge political win for Republicans, giving them a bludgeon to use against him the rest of his term. They'd slowly let it go through the court system while placing the debt around his neck and accusing him of tyrannical socialist action etc.

 

[TerryMathews]

Which you didn't really do, since we have had a budget up until very recently. Though, of course, the 14th doesn't mention the budget at all but talks about US debt.

And I agree to the two mutually exclusive conditions. First you pass a law saying the President must spend the money, then you deny him the ability to borrow the money to pay for what he had to spend.

And you can add that Congress has violated the 14th amendment by not approving the debt ceiling.

It's a situation worthy of HAL 9000

I did exactly that. He said a budget.

I can't help it if techs made his point badly.

Haven't you noticed techs stops posting in a thread when he's proven wrong? QED...

 

[MayorOfAmerica]

The Fascistic Framers of the 14th probably intended to give the Executive the power to raise the debt ceiling on hisown, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

It's actually the wrong thing to do, because Dr. Paul does what is moral and what is right.

I agree about Ron Paul, If he wasn't screwed over then he could have fixed all this mess.

So you guys gonna bang, or what?

 

[Incorruptible]

So you guys gonna bang, or what?

The real question is why are you still having your circle jerk with your fellow leftists?

 

[DCal430]

It depends how you see it.

The US government can just use FED to print so much money that you can repay all debt. Meaning that the 14th amendment as such holds no value. Nomatter how you translate it in terms of state bankuptcy.

You know the feds actually don't print money. The U.S treasury is the one who prints money.

 

[Jhhnn]

Until the recent spate of Republican obstructionism, grandstanding & hostage taking, raising the debt ceiling was merely a formality, an opportunity for politicians to wring their hands & clutch their pearls over money they'd already demanded that the Executive branch spend.

The whole schtick is extremely dishonest, a real bullshit way to pander & pose, extremely degrading to the govt of the people that we have to put up with it at all. Passage of any spending measure should automatically include raising the debt limit, if necessary, to pay for it.

If push comes to shove, I'd suggest the platinum coin Seignorage route. It's perfectly legal & Constitutional. That, or quit paying Congress first.

 

[LunarRay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

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.



Since every U.S. budget was "authorized by law" does "validity" mean the U.S. must pay its debts?

No! Validity means the debt is valid . Meaning; if it is not paid the character of the debt does not change form to some invalid state.
No one questions the validity of the debt for purposes of paying it but, rather, are there funds to pay what has been incurred. The 'Full Faith and Credit' clause deals with the States and not the National Debt, however, one could argue that there exists an unambiguous nexus between the States regarding each State's obligation toward another State's portion of debt (the persons of the various States) and that the central government is simply a conduit through which this obligation is satisfied and additionally, treaties among various Nations obligates payment of debt among those Nations (again, persons of the various Nations are the Nations)

I'd probably be laughed off the stage if I were to argue this but, non-the-less I do.

The Point, however, is: Do the acts of Congress mandate the accommodation of either payment or increases to the total debt obligation of the US. This, in my opinion is a no brainer... Of course it does. Either it is paid or it is owed and Congress must arrange for this. Congress cannot authorize without including the payment feature...

hehehe... If one has a premeditated notion to incur debt and not to pay it back it might fall under the fraud statutes... Congress can't intentionally defraud the people or the nations.... so unsightly a thing to do... and sick bird ... sick bird... (illegal)