Replies

Yesterday evening, I was listening to the NPR station on the car radio. The NPR host asked a liberal Democrat Congress-critter why Obama didn't just use "the 14th Amendment option" as if that had always been an arrow in the Presidential quiver.

The Democrat Congress-critter replied that the 14th Amendment move would be "an option" but "not preferable".

So, both the liberal NPR host and the Congress-critter were shaping the battlefield to try to convince the public that something buried in the fine print of the 14th Amendment gives POTUS the power of the purse specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution.

So, let's read what the 14th Amendment has to say about the public debt:

14th Amendment, 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

In short, that means that the UNION debt "authorized by law" in accordance with the Constitution "shall not be questioned" but the CONFEDERATE debt UNAUTHORIZED by law in accordance with the Constitution was "illegal and void".

There is absolutely no question that any debt, up to the current debt ceiling, shall not be questioned and is legal.

However, the entire point of the debt debate is to have any debt above that ceiling , "authorized by law".

Any debt, above and beyond the current authorized debt ceiling, would be, by definition UNAUTHORIZED by law and, as per the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment, would be illegal.

If Obama tries to pervert the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment and usurps the power of the purse from Congress, he would be committing an impeachable offense.

Congress does not need SCOTUS to settle the matter. Congress just needs the political courage to impeach Obama for clearly violating one the most basic principles of the Separation of Powers under the U.S. Constituion, namely, Congress controls the purse.

Once a U.S. President takes upon himself both the power of the purse and the power of enforcement, he has declared himself to be a Dictator with even more power than a Roman Republican Dictator that was Dictator only by the express authorization of the Roman Senate.

If, however, Congress shows the backbone of a chocolate eclair, SCOTUS may reason that Congress authorized the Obama's action simply by Congress' inaction.

There’s another issue that’s pretty basic. Defaulting on the current debt is not the President’s only option, he has ongoing revenue sources that are sufficient to make the debt payments if he cuts somewhere else, therefore there’s no nexis between denying him the right to borrow more money and “questioning” the debt.

...debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion...

The debts incurred for the surge in Iraq are clearly covered--that was definitely spent to suppress an insurrection or rebellion.