I wouldn’t add much to what Laurence Tribe has already said:
(1) Even if the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that interest on the debt be paid, there’ll be more than enough in revenue to pay the interest — the debt ceiling increase is needed to pay the other expenses as well.
(2) Even if the government didn’t have the money to pay interest (and, again, it does have the money), it doesn’t follow that the president may exceed his powers to do that, just as he can’t take property without due process in order to do that. That the president has a constitutional duty to do something doesn’t mean that he can violate other constitutional provisions in order to do it.
INTEREST DOESN'T MATTER. I'm so tired of seeing this lame meme.
These are bonds, not credit cards. You can't just send a check for the minimum payment. If $500 billion in bonds come due, you have to pay $500 billion before you can issue another round of it.
If you don't have $500 billion, you default. That's it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, both interest and principal matter. :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseauctions held on the same day as maturities allow the Treasury to "net" them out ... cash in cash out ... same day settlement ...
and the Treasury can issue valid checks with 0 in the bank ... Did you forget we are not on a gold standard ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne of the necessary principles of a free republic, in addition to the oft-cited "a parliament can not bind its successor," is that all burdens to be borne by the people must be approved by the legislative branch. The Constitution clearly reflects this principle; all bills for the raising of revenue shall origniate in the House of representatives, Congress shall have the power to declare war, Congress shall have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy, and to provide for calling forth the militia. Treaties must be ratified by two thirds of the Senate. The colonial slogan "No taxation without representation" was a special case of the more general notion that free people willingly assume burdens and obligations through their representatives.
The fact that this principle is often neglected and frequently violated by an over-reaching judiciary and opportunistic executive does not make it any less valid. Each such violation is in some measure a loss of liberty. Allowing the executive to de facto borrow money on the credit of the United States is not only a usurpation of legislative prerogative, it is an affront to the notion that we are neither subjects, nor wards of a paternalistic despot. Free people do not live this way and remain free.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe president is not 'deciding' to spend money on anything- the congress already did that by approving the legislation in the 1st place- the debt ceiling is to pay for things that our reps have ALREADY PASSED
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy are you only focusing on interest? Surely whatever applies to interest payments applies to repayment of the principal of maturing obligations. Which is the rub, because every day, billions of US treasuries mature and their repayment is funded out of new issuances.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusenot every day ... weekly at best and the Treasury holds weekly auctions to roll them over ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegbh, new issuances, if they have the same principle value (or par value or whatever the statute specifies) as the bonds they repay, are fine. Reaching the debt limit doesn't mean no new debt is authorized, it means no net new debt is authorized - i.e., no new debt in excess of what is retired. Treasury can still have borrowed up to 14.29 trillion, or whatever it is; if they retire some of it, they can reborrow that amount and reach the limit again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, though, professor, what happens if the various laws do turn out to be mutually exclusive?
I think I've seen the phrase "doctrine of necessity" used in a united states bankruptcy law context, but I don't see any American references on the wikipedia page.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseprinting press ... the Fed has one that prints shiny new dollars anytime they want ... remember QE1 and QE2 ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey bought over a trillion dollars of bonds with money so fresh the ink hadn't dried ...
Regretably, I fear that the good professor is overlooking precedent.
Earlier this century (or perhaps in the twilight years of the last), the good citizens of Nevada amended their constitution to require a supermajority of the Legislature to raise taxes. In typical fashion, the dolts in the Legislature produced a budget that required an increase in taxes to fund, but couldn't get the supermajority. Session ends, Gov' calls a special session to deal with the "tax question" (special session can only deal with one topic, so the budget was off the table), stalemate goes to the Nevada Supreme Court.
NV Supreme Court rules that the spending obligation (funding of education) in the Constitution overrides the "mere procedural requirements" of the much, much newer taxing restriction amendment.
You can bet your sweet bippy that if a Democrat President/Congress tries the "Constitutional obligations overrule Constitutional restrictions" gambit, there will be 4 justices on board from the git-go. The fate of our Republic would be left in the hands of one man....
btw, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the citizen's appeal to the NV Supremes ruling. also, btw, none of the justices who ruled in favor of ignoring the citizenry has been re-elected to serve on the Court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse