(01-11-2013 10:12 AM)janedrake Wrote:
(01-11-2013 04:40 AM)pappy Wrote: I agree with Krugman but still feel the 14th Amendment solution is the best option. Section 4 of that amendment had the specific intent of keeping the legislators from the repatriated states from finding ways to keep the United States from paying its bills, particularly those bills incurred as a result of putting down their insurrection.
I say push the Constitutional option first and use the 1 trillion dollar coin gimmick as a last resort.
I hear you, Pappy, but I've read in several different venues that for some reason, the Prez -- who of course is a former constitutional law professor -- doesn't seem to think the 14th amendment is an option at all.
I think most who argue that the 14th Amendment could not be used by the President use Article1, Section 8 of the constitution as their basis.
Quote:Clause 1. 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;
Clause 2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
In their interpretation the only body authorized to enforce the 14th Amendment would be Congress and not the President based on the above as well as some of the language in the 14th Amendment. Specifically Section 5,
Quote:Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The problem I see with these arguments is that the refusal of Congress to raise the debt limit (or even the existence of the law demanding the periodic raising of the limit) goes against the language of the Amendment in that rather than enforcing it they are attempting to circumvent their responsibility to pay the debt or in the language of the Amendment they are in fact questioning the validity of the debt.
Well that is my take on it anyway.