Looks to me like the President raising the debt limit would be blatantly unconstitutional. It says the validity of public dept authorized by law, and only Congress has the authority to authorize public debt. Any president trying a stunt like that ought to be impeached, not that it seems to have stopped anyone before.

FWIW, tax hikes may be necessary to get us completely out of this mess, but I want to see big spending cuts before we even think about it.

It may also come as a shocker but Leviathan has enough money coming in to pay it’s debts “authorized by law”.

There’s plenty of other things that will just have to go unfunded. Obamacare would be a good start.

On the 14th amendment. They key words I am focusing on is “If congress fails to act”

1st way Congress
Congress fails to act by August 1st 11:59 p.m ET, then the President has the authority to raise the debit ceiling under the 14th amendment. He or any President would have to do it or could get impeached for not doing it. From me reading full 14 Amendment, he or another other president would have no choice to do this.

2nd way
This is a little more sticky. He could veto the bill & use the 14th amendment

3rd way
Is temporarily declare an national emergency & using emergency powers to raise the debit ceiling.

4th way
He could raise the debit ceiling under National Security laws.

As to the other comment.

People have to pay their bills, I am sure telling you credit card company, landlord or your mortgage company you social security or will not come this month will be fine with them. Which mean more people will be out on the street. Do you really want you grandfather, grandmother on the street?

He or any president would have to do some type of emergency action even if it maybe illegal. That for the courts to decide.

Sorry to remind those above regarding debate of 14th Amendment – I think you’re willingly ignoring the bigger picture.

This President and a Dem Congress has no intention of repaying the $$$ borrowed. The 14th Amendment has only become an issue after a new crop of Repubs were elected who, though mixed in with the old, do not share the ‘spend like crazy’ mentality.

Of course you need to increase revenue in addition to reducing spending. However, this President and Dem leaders aren’t helping either. No tax increase is uncompromising – agreed… But frankly, as a taxpayer, it would be a confidence builder to me to know that the fed gov’t, and secondarily state gov’ts following, can reverse their spending carelessness & spend wisely.

None of the above commenters would keep giving $$$ to someone who just spends it, only coming back once yearly to ask for more…

Current Dem leadership have been even MORE irresponsible by not passing a budget x 2 years, then saying $hit like “Entitlements are off the table.”

- Cut Pentagon spending? Sure! Cut it 10%.
- Lets also eliminate ALL tax loopholes for big businesses – which donate to both political parties – but drop the corporate tax rate so they still have incentive to create jobs.
- Allow US companies the freedom with less regulation to develop natural gas resources here in the US – another industry to increase income, increase new jobs, increase tax revenues, and increase revenues from exports while decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Both ND & TX are doing fairly well b/c of this. (Hypocritical to say, ‘No drilling.’ here in the US, butgivint $2 billion to Petrobas, then telling Brazil we want to be their biggest importer…)
- Let’s eliminate gov’t grant funding for things that private non-profit organizations can raise $$$ for – essentially everything – except the NIH, CDC, & NSF.
- Allow individual states to target their individual needs more specifically at the state level. Why should someone’s taxes from any state be used to help prop up other states going broke?
- pass laws making lobbying illegal for EVERYONE
- aggressively investigate & prosecute ANY politician who commits fraudulent or corrupt actions resulting in their personal financial benefit or evades taxes
- eliminating all earmarks… if an individual state wants a project that will only have local impact or benefit, let that be a state funding matter, nit a federal funding matter
- term limits of 2 for Senate, or 6 for House (total 12 years)
- eliminate tax deductions for ANY donation to ANY political organization

- And yes, combine Medicaid & Medicare while cutting their budget by 10% to eliminate redundancy & waste.
- And yes, prosecute Medicaid & Medicare fraud & loss.
- And yes, consider repealing Obamacare – no 2000pg bill should ever be passed without substantial open debate… from either party.
- And yes, reduce Social Security funding by 10%, & making the following ineligible for SS:
– anyone < 67 unless proven handicapped (MDs providing fraudulent documentation prosecuted);
- anyone >= 67yo w/ indiv total assets >= $750 thousand or combined pr >= $1 million;
– this can be amplified for those truly in need by eliminating the death/inheritance tax
– any person convicted of a felony after the age of 50
- this isn’t even yet approaching consolidating many federal agencies which serve redundant functions providing social services
- no social benefits whatsoever for people residing illegally in this country, and immediate loss of social benefits (& repayment if collection had started) for those who hire & exploit those here illegally

The above is just a start…

When the Federal Government demonstrates it can rein in it’s spending, then I would have more confidence & less problems that when my taxes are raised, that the funds would be used wisely, not to benefit some corrupt politicians’ cronies…

So you can debate the 14 th Amendment & point fingers, but the sad fact is that you are doing no different that arguing with a credit card bank/ company to raise your spending limit while you make minimum payment, or threaten to walk away from paying. The question shouldn’t be, “How much should we raise the debt ceiling?” The question should be, after stopping & thinking, “Should we raise the debt ceiling? Perhaps it is a necessity, but shouldn’t be done so frivolously, should be done with embarrassment, and should be done with A LOT of CUTS in spending now…

Moody’s, Pimco, S&P haven’t yet downgraded the US Federal Credit status, but I already have. I get the sense that I am in no means by myself.

Point fingers at whoever you want. It’s moot – this country is in serious trouble financially. If all of you are okay with the fact that we are here now because of politicians of ANY stripe has been making promises they cannot keep, at someone else’s expense, then look in the mirror andvstart bitching at yourselves…. Nothing says you can’t donate more of your hard earned $$$ on the bottom line of your Federal or State tax returns… But I suspect that most of you don’t.

I could even doveish democrats using the debt ceiling to force an end (or at least a descalation) to what seems like perpetual war. It’s been 10 years now… it took 4 to beat two global powers with industrial economies each 70 million strong in WWII. We still have 150,000 fighting men and women deployed in combat zones two months after Osama became fish food… when’s the ticker tape parade that means the boys can come home and the TSA disolved. Reinforce and lock the cockpit doors hell yes… spend 8 billion/year to side scatter radar / grope every man woman and child taking a flight… hell no!

One could argue that the 14th amendment is later than Article I and thus its expansive language overrules the list of powers granted to Congress. Again, from a practical perspective, that would work out best. However, from a purely legal perspective, it wouldn’t hold up that a vaguely written clause would give the Executive branch the power to issue debt.

The 14th amendment, however, does overrule any possible statutes. The job of the Executive branch is to enforce the constitution and then the statutes. Rather than breaking Article I to enforce the 14th amendment, the president would break the Social Security statute, Medicare statute, laws setting soldier pay, etc. by cutting all non-debt expenditures in half with IOU’s for the rest of it.

Then again, the best legal reasoning does not really matter in the Supreme Court. If the most straight-forward legal reasoning creates something horribly impractical and wrong, the courts tend to bend over backwards to legally justify the more practical course. By the letter of the law, a court probably should issue an injunction for any debt issuance not approved by Congress and then rule against it. In the real world though, I would guess no court would issue an injunction and cause the US to default. I would also guess a court would interpret the 14th amendment as implicitly overriding the Article I power of Congress to issue debt, since that power gives Congress the authority to spend and then not fund the spending with debt, calling into question all US obligations.

The President should just keep doing his job, minus the strange caving on Social Security, and if things aren’t resolved by the deadline, declare that the 14th amendment doesn’t allow him to let the debt come into question, so he’s instructing the Treasury to carry on as normal until Congress passes a debt limit increase.

The question, then, if Treasury can’t issue debt but also can’t, logistically, stop sending out checks, is what happens if the US overdraws its account? Do checks from the Treasury bounce? If they just go through, perhaps the debt ceiling is, as a practical matter, meaningless.