How? The argument runs that Section 4 authorizes it.
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.
Validity of the public debt.
Funny how the only way they want to use the Constitution is to destroy what it’s there to protect.
Wouldn’t Section 4 be more reasonably interpreted to mean the government is constitutionally obligated to pay on the debt? In other words, other non-essential (not constitutionally mandated) programs would have to be sacrificed, if necessary, to continue servicing the debt? It seems to me the founders simply wanted to ensure the debt wasn’t written off by a political majority.
It's a shame Princess Pelosi did not read how Section 4 is to be enforced.
The President has no authority under this amendment to circumvent Congress.
They keep forgetting about that pesky "authorized by law" part of the 14th. No such law authorizing the President to increase the debt ceiling exists.
Maybe I can’t read Engrish....
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.
Okay, but this is not existing public debt.
This is an attempt to increase the public debt.
Section 4 makes no mention of increasing debt, only that prior debt shall be unquestioned