What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Is this merely a statement that Timmy didn't quote the 14th Amendment precisely, or are you contending that the 14th "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned" means something other than "the public debt must be paid"?

It's conceivable that a some point the court rules that that is in fact what the amendment means or implies, but absent that ruling that is not what the words on the paper say.

[The Minsky Moment]

In Perry v US(1935), the Supreme Court said the following about the 14th amendment debt clause:

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned." While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression "the validity of the public debt" as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

That last sentence is very broad and would clearly support the argument against the debt limit.  However, it is arguably too broad as there are lots of things that "concern[] the integrity of the public obligations" and clearly all those things can't be unconstitutional.  The debt limit statute had existed for 18 years when Perry was decided and no one seems to have questioned its constitutionality.

However, in 74 the Congress also passed the Impoundment Control Act, which essentially requires Presidents to spend all monies appropriated by Congress. This sets up a fundamental contradiction with the debt limit if it is not raised sufficiently as there are conflicting statutory mandates to spend money that does not exist.  It also raises the 14th amendment issue more sharply as compliance with the Impoundment Control Act (a constitutional requirement under Article II) necessarily and directly undermines the integrity of public obligations unless the debt limit is lifted or ignored.

Even if the constitutional argument is sound though, the practical obstacle is that the market for debt issuances whose validity cannot be confirmed without constitutional litigation is not likely to be very robust.

[jimmy olsen]

Would this idea work?

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1653734738178310144

[Sheilbh]

I'd suggest if you're looking at possible end runs, then probably not.

It might work on a technical level for a while but I think, in a way, it would just reinforce fears about American politics.

[The Minsky Moment]

Premium bonds suffer from a similar problem as the 14th amendment response - it requires investors to purchase debt instruments without knowing if they will ultimately found to be valid or not. 

If the objective is to really address this issues, the best move would be for the President to run into federal court NOW and ask for an expedited declaratory judgment to resolve the contradiction between the Impoundment Act and the debt limit statute; such an application could include the 14th amendment arguments etc. as desired.  try to fast track to get a Supreme Court ruling as quickly as possible.

But the President may not want to do that because the more desired outcome is to reach a political resolution with Congress authorizing a raise in the limit with a bill that can actually pass both houses.  If the President pursues effective legal alternatives, that takes the pressure off GOP leaders on Congress to force a compromise.  Of course that assumes McCarthy is capable of forcing a compromise even under the threat of total disaster (I assume Mitch can).

It's a very tricky game theory problem playing out in real life, with the fiscal stability of the US as the stakes . . .

[Hamilcar]

Just mint the coin already.

[Tonitrus]

The market on those coins by late-night TV commercials in 20 years time will be enormous.

[Syt]

I love John Fetterman



(Vast majority of comments on reddit were, "Awesome for Fetterman, but WTF is the guy on the right doing with his mismatched suit and brown shoes???" )

[Hamilcar]

Wearing suits is rightly dying out. Glad that a US senator is taking a stand against these silly costumes.

[Grey Fox]

Fetterman is only 53, so proably 20 years younger than the next senator he's with. Rightfully, he dressed like a child.

[grumbler]

Fetterman is only 53, so proably 20 years younger than the next senator he's with. Rightfully, he dressed like a child.

If you dress your children in shorts and a long-sleeved hoody, get ready for when they are old enough to feel comfortable taking out their anger on you.

[Grey Fox]

 

What's the problem? Cold in the morning & sweating in the afternoon requires a solution.

[Admiral Yi]

Showing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect.  The same applies to Congress.

[Hamilcar]

Showing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect.  The same applies to Congress.

Hard disagree. Wearing suits and ties is like medieval court dress. It's only slightly less anachronistic today than the weirdo gowns Charles wore during his coronation.

Hoodie and jeans is business formal now.

[Valmy]

Showing up in court in shorts and a hoodie is a sign of disrespect.  The same applies to Congress.

Agree. He isn't my senator though.