Constitutional scholars are like attorneys.
Every one of them is always right and every one of them disagrees with every other one.
Lol! Ok fine, lets just print 14 Trillion dollars and pay it off in one go. The debt would be paid and the constitional requirement would be satisfied. (of course the people that got paid would discover that their dollars were worth more as toilet paper than as currency)
None of Obama’s debt was “authorized by law” as there has not been a budget to authorize the spending.
Pointed out just above, Congress also has the power to create money , so it can, under the constitution, create script that pays off the debt.
It is unconstitutional for the US government to repudiate debt that has been validly authorized.
Default is another matter. In the case of default, the government is not claiming creditors do not have the right to be paid, or that the debt is not valid. It is valid, they do have the right to be paid. It's just that the government has empty pockets. Creditors can go to court and get a valid judgment on defaulted debt. If they're lucky, maybe they can foreclose on the Grand Canyon.
At public auction as the auctioneer begins. OK, what’d have for the Grand Canyon Canyon? Do I hear a $1 million, do I have $2 million? Come on folks, it’s worth more than that. OK we’ll throw in the Statue of Liberty, as well. OK that’s more like it $5 million going once, twice...
Constitutional restrictions have been ignored since aug 2008
it started with article 2 section 1.
if they can’t uphold such a simple restriction, the odds of them adhering to the bigger restrictions is zer0
Even if wrongly interpreted with full gusto (as has been done with the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause) it doesn't change the fact that ONLY Congress can actually authorize debt. The debt ceiling is one mechanism for doing that, and no serious Constitutional lawyer would argue otherwise.
Good article here: Desperate, Devious and Dangerous: The Left’s 14th Amendment Ploy by Ernest Istook
Just another idiot that thinks money grows on trees.
I am not trained at metaphysical refinements nor tests of logical skill but it seems to me the section of the questionable 14th Amendment cited is what we called an introductory clause.Linked to what follows by the connective term But-of the dependent clause. The Dependent clause makes clear the intent of the section-and that part cited but justification for what follows.Judge Hand Jan.14,1983 raised valid arguments suggesting the 14th Amendment had been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court and I suggest that is true of the Carpetbaggers today.I have seen credible evidence suggesting the 14th Amendment was NOT Constitutionally ratified IF true then no argument using it as basis has any validity.
When enough people who really want to work can't find jobs, lose their homes and everything else, and start going after those responsible we will have a situation unheard of in Greece, Portugal or Ireland!
The worse things get the more people wake up!
It only says the debt can’t be questioned.
Doesn’t say anything about actually paying it.
What a line of misdirection. The USConst does not allow a great deal of what USG has been doing since the revolution of the 1930’s (New Deal). USConst provides for a limited national government resulting in a limited size.
The solution to bad laws originating from the revolution is to throw them out and demand USG obeys the charter which establisted and allows it to exist at all (USCont). The solution is to pile more kakamanee laws upon the corrupted lies of the past.
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 78.
The United States Constitution @ 1791. All Rights Reserved.
— unknown
I thought that was the part of the Constitution that allows the Liberal Messiah to control the federal purse strings without any need for the Congress. [/sarc]