USA 2024 Elections Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Tue May 16 23:36:32 PDT 2023


Democrats are economic frauds putting your families in debt for their
excess and power...


Why Biden Can't Use The 14th Amendment To Raise The Debt Ceiling

https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-biden-cant-use-the-14th-amendment-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling_5266770.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-a-convention-of-states-really-works_3710824.html
https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/07-27-2017-Natelson-BBA-1.pdf
https://www.theepochtimes.com/understanding-the-constitution-the-14th-amendment-part-i_4090612.html
https://i2i.org/how-academia-connived-with-elizabeth-warrens-cherokee-fabrication/
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4003076-democrats-press-biden-to-use-14th-amendment-on-debt-ceiling/

Some Senate Democrats are urging President Joe Biden to “use” the 14th
Amendment to raise the debt limit by executive decree. For example,
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) stated:

    “The 14th Amendment is not anyone’s first choice. The first choice
is that the Republicans raise the debt ceiling because the United
States government never, ever, ever, ever defaults on its legal
obligations. But if Kevin McCarthy is going to push the United States
over a cliff, then it becomes the president’s responsibility to find
an alternative path.”

As a former law professor and a senator for more than 10 years, Warren
almost certainly knows that keeping the current debt ceiling doesn’t
cause default. It merely forces the government to run a balanced
budget—something the government should be doing anyway.

And all Warren needs to do is read the 14th Amendment to learn that it
gives the president no power to “use” it to create more debt.

Not Raising the Debt Limit Just Means Balancing the Budget

The debt limit is a law restricting how much the federal government
may borrow. The current law says $34.4 trillion. If Congress refuses
to change the law, it will remain at $34.4 trillion. Borrowing more
than that is illegal. So the government will have to pay its debt
obligations out of current revenue.

Could the federal government do that? Sure.

Current revenue is about eight times current interest payments. (In
other words, debt service is about 13 percent of revenue.) Obviously,
there’s enough money coming in to pay existing debt while retaining
most government services. Of course, the feds would have to trim other
parts of the budget. I’m sure readers have many suggestions on that
score.

These facts are no secret. Moreover, they’re buttressed by experience:
We have reached earlier debt limits on many occasions, but there has
been no default. Mostly what happens is a few federal facilities
close. (When that happened last time, the feds closed Rocky Mountain
National Park. No problem: The Colorado state government took over the
job.)

Still, every time we approach a new debt limit, unscrupulous
politicians and their media propagandists claim we’re at risk of
default. This is so patently false that we can only conclude that what
concerns them isn’t default but something else.

What is that “something else”? That people might learn they really
don’t need all that exorbitant federal spending. That they might
decide they like the budget being balanced.
The 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, soon after the Civil War.
It’s the longest amendment ever adopted, because it addressed a
multiplicity of issues. One reason for the amendment was to ensure
that future Congresses, even if dominated by members from former
Confederate states, would honor the Union Civil War debt.

The amendment has five sections. Sections 4 and 5 are relevant to our
discussion. Here’s the pertinent language:

    “Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law … shall not be questioned …

    “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Notice what this language says:

    The validity of U.S. public debt shall not be questioned. This
means that the federal government may not use any pretext for refusing
to pay off debt instruments, such as savings bonds and Treasury bills.

    The amendment grants Congress the power to pass laws to ensure our
debt obligations are met.

Now notice what this language doesn’t say:

    It doesn’t say the government must borrow more to pay off existing
debt; Congress may meet its obligations from existing revenue.

    It doesn’t say Congress must change legal limits on borrowing.

    Although it grants power to Congress, it grants none to the
president—other than to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. This is
because the Constitution requires that the president “take Care that
the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3). One of those
laws the president must enforce is the national debt limit.

This Isn’t a Mere Technicality

The principle that a government’s financial powers are lodged in a
representative legislature rather than the executive is central to our
political system. Many people died for that ideal.

When, in the 17th century, King Charles I exercised financial powers
without the approval of Parliament, it led directly to the English
Civil War. The king lost that war and his head (literally).

Then, in the 18th century, King George III and a Parliament not
representing Americans tried to tax Americans. This led directly to
the American Revolution. Again, the king lost. He did keep his head,
but he lost all his power within the United States and most of it
within Britain.

Biden would be wise to consult these precedents.

The fact that people such as Warren should even mention the
possibility of the president’s violating the law and unilaterally
taking on more public debt tells us what we need to know about them.
The Makings of Calamity

One of the talking points among those who want to raise the debt limit
is that failure to do so would be a “calamity.” Or so claims Treasury
Secretary Janet Yellen. From experience, we know this isn’t true.

But here’s a real recipe for calamity: Imagine that to pay current
debt without cutting spending, Biden tries to sell debt instruments on
his own authority. (Call them “Biden Bonds.”) When the Supreme Court
strikes down this autocratic edict (as it has struck down several of
Biden’s other autocratic edicts), what then would be the effect on
United States credit?

And since people in the bond market are risking their own money as
Warren and Yellen are not, how many of them would be willing to
purchase Biden Bonds? And if they refused to do so, what would that do
to U.S. credit?
How Can We Avoid This in the Future?

For more than 50 years, a super-majority of the American people have
favored a constitutional amendment forcing the federal government,
except in rare cases, to run a balanced budget. That would stop the
feds from piling up more and more debt.

In 2017, I wrote (admittedly, a first draft) of such an amendment. It
isn’t overly technical. It merely says this: Before Congress may raise
the debt limit—in other words, before it runs a budget
deficit—Congress must get the approval of a majority of the
legislatures of states containing a majority of the U.S. population
(pdf).

There are two principal reasons we don’t have a balanced budget
amendment: Congress refuses to propose one for the states to ratify,
and apologists for the national oligarchy have been misleading
Americans about the procedure for proposing an amendment through a
convention of states.

Eventually, Americans will get fed up with the delay and force their
state lawmakers to call a convention. Let’s hope it will not be too
late.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list