The left hates the Constitution except when it can be twisted to serve its purposes. Obama is one appointment away from doing away with the document. One more Elena Kagan and the 14th amendment will come to mean incomes MUST be redistributed by the government.
No joke...this is coming.
Grasping at straws, aren’t they.
I think it’s a stretch to interpret the 14th Amendment as requiring the payment of interest on the debt before other payments are made, but it certainly doesn’t authorize the Executive Branch to issue new debt beyond that properly authorized by Congress under Article I.
What the 14th does do is forbid the federal government, Congress or the Executive, from voiding such properly authorized debt. That is, such debt can never be repudiated. This is not the same as saying that it can’t be subject to default, i.e., delayed payment.
Default is not the same as repudiation. Following a default, the borrower still owes the debt and can be pursued for it. If an individual repudiates a debt, say due to false documentation, misrepresentations, etc., and a court agrees with him, that debt is no longer owed.
The 14th simply states that, once issued, authorized debt cannot be repudiated, period. (Of course, given the track record liberals have for Constitutional interpretation, a future Supreme Court might try to do exactly that someday, using the same sort of tortured logic they are trying to use today, but in a different direction.)
And, furthermore, if the XIV said what they claim it does, the President’s only course of action would be to pay the interest on the debt first, then the pensions, and only then spend what’s left over, if anything, on the functions of the Federal government.
As per the granted enumerated powers. That is all.
As long as we’re reading the 14th Amendment, consider Article 3 of that amendment which states:
“Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Highlighting just the part I’m addressing, it would read:
“Section 3. No person shall...hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath,...as an executive...of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same... But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Silly Question #1: Did Governor Perry take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and if so, was his call for secession of Texas from the United States sufficient to trigger the requirement that he not hold a national office, civil or military, without a vote of 2/3 of each House?
Serious Question #2: How many people presently working in the Obama Administration might this Article have direct bearing upon? Interesting, no?
The Left might yet come to regret digging into the 14th Amendment.
Just remember, the requirement for applying it is that the person must have previously sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution while serving in a State or Federal capacity specified in the article.
Good, timely, article.
An excellent and timely article indeed!
Sadly, I don’t see anything good coming out of this mess. There isn’t a workable spine in the entire GOP, even among the freshmen, so I see little chance of anything positive coming in the next two weeks.
Wish I could be more optimistic, but we’ve been screwed so many times ...
“Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations, the court ruled. “
This one line will enslave us the minute democrats convert all the entitlement programs into flat debt and issue it like crazy during the periods in which they are in control.
It's not ironic at all, actually. It's a key part of the strategy of passive-aggressive budgeting. If one assigns the highest budgetary priority to the things which are most important and the lowest priority to those which are least important, the net effect will be that one's budget can be cut significantly significantly without having to cut anything overly important. This is the way budgeting is done in cases where one actually has to live with a fixed budget.
When the total budget is fungible, however, and the entity making the budget can demand as much money as it can "justify", the passive-agressive strategy is to give the highest priority to the least-important things, and the lowest priority to the most-important things (or at least those that will generate the most noise if they're cut). In that way, since eliminating any funding would mean eliminating an important program, no funding at all can get cut.
If SS were private accounts, the money would have to be accounted as "spent" the moment it was promised to someone, but politicians would no longer be able to manipulate the spending priority of SS payments as a means of "sheltering" other expenditures.