Friday, January 04, 2013
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment
Gerard N. Magliocca
Now that we are past the fiscal cliff, we can return to what everybody really wants to discuss--the debt ceiling. When Congress and the President sparred over this issue in 2011, there was a lot of debate about whether the President could unilaterally act (to raise taxes, borrow money, or slash spending), if the ceiling was not raised. Less attention was paid (including by me) about the threshold issue--what constitutes a violation of Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which holds that: "The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned."
The fact that currency changes can affect the value of debt does not mean that there's an implied "substantiality" qualification to the 14A's bar on "questioning" the "validity" of debt.
When debts are issued, they are issued in a certain currency, and thus it's contemplated and presumed that currency changes will affect the value of the debt. Thus, the currency change doesn't "question" the "validity" of the debt *at all*, whether or not the change is "substantial."
Under your view, however, a sufficiently "substantial" currency change would violate the 14A. That seems quite wrong. If Congress massively inflates its currency, such that our lender's real purchasing power is substantially reduced, that doesn't question the validity of the debt; it just means that our lenders should have pegged the debt to a standard that wasn't solely controlled by the borrower.
Since I am European and the legal termonogy over here is different from yours, my question is: is «validity» the same as «value» or «recoverability within the specified terms»?
According to my understanding, US national debt would be «valid» as long as the US government is legally bound to repay the money to the holder. The breach of this obligation would not make the debt «invalid», but it would only mean that the US government would be subject to the legal consequences of the infringement (payment of interest?).
Besides, changes in the value of the currency would not diminish the bindingness of the obligation of the US government to repay the debt and, therefore, would not affect its validity.
A plurality in the Gold Clause Cases did say that a substantial devaluation of debt violates Section 4.
Even if the plurality is right, that at most means that a devaluation can rise to the level of validity-questioning if sufficiently substantial. That does not mean that something that indisputably questions the validity of the debt can be discounted as insubstantial.
In other words, the 14A unambiguously proscribes questioning the validity of the debt, w/o any sort of materiality threshold. The fact that a materiality threshold has been imposed when a devaluation is *analogized* to validity-questioning doesn't justify imposing such an atextual limitation on actions that directly question the debt's validity.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but nowadays I think that if the President and his party decided to get behind the idea, and enough liberal advocates championed it at least a substantial portion of the judiciary could be counted on to rule in favor of it.
I mean, it worked (albeit on the other side) with the 'activity/inactivity distinction' in the ACA case.
I haven't heard the term used recently myself but the last comment brings to mind the "Overton Window."
Yes, if there is another support for an idea, chances are that it will be a credible legal theory. The Constitution sets up certain limits and there is a lot of general agreement with debate being less than one might think.
[e.g., the general public accepts a basic right to own a gun, which in some nations is actually quite controversial]
OTOH, given the controlling majority of the USSC, the window leans a bit more right than it might otherwise.
Might be a mixed metaphor. As to being "cynical," I think its just how the system is set up. Prof. Balkin, for one, wrote a lot about the issue. See also, "Keeping Faith in the Constitution" by Karlan, Liu & Schroeder
The 14A simply states that the US will honor its debt, but does not tell Congress how to raise money to do so and in no way, shape or form grants the President the power to seize Congress' power to raise money. There is no necessity argument for such an executive seizure of power because current tax revenues are far more than needed to continue to service the debt.
The fact that normally reasonable people are even giving credence to suggestions that the President may seize Congress' powers to borrow or coin money shows how close to the Rubicon of dictatorship our fading Republic is moving.
Right, why is the argument never that the 14th amendment, or whatever, authorizes the President to levy new taxes? Or wage a war, and pay the debt by pillage? Why isn't the legislation setting revenue thought to imply spending cuts, instead of the legislation setting spending implying borrowing?
The power to borrow is just the latest planned usupation in a program to gradually transform the US into a dictatorship. A program which has advanced remarkably fast during Obama's time in office, though I don't think he'll have time to finish it.
HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
According to my understanding, US national debt would be «valid» as long as the US government is legally bound to repay the money to the holder.Post a Comment
Buy FUT 14 Coins
League of Legends boosting
Buy Cheap Fifa 14 Coins