Unconstitutional for Obama to Raise Debt Ceiling Without Congress

July 7, 2011 RSS Feed Print

President Barack Obama, we have been told many times, is a constitutional scholar. His administration’s latest plan for dealing with the debt ceiling is, therefore, an occasion for him to have his credentials reviewed.

According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who, one presumes, is speaking for Obama, the public debt clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the president the authority to deal with the approaching debt ceiling by ignoring it.

[See a slide show of 6 consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised.]

Here’s what the amendment actually says:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

To Obama’s allies, the idea that it is unconstitutional for the nation to default on its publicly held debt means the president can ignore the debt ceiling while continuing to borrow more money—without the approval of Congress—in order to keep paying off past loans.

Obama, wrote Katrina vanden Heuvel in Wednesday’s Washington Post, should adopt “a plain reading” of the amendment “to conclude—statutory debt ceiling or not—that he is constitutionally required to order the Treasury to continue paying America’s bills.” [Slide Show: 6 Ways to Raise the Debt Ceiling]

“In that sense, this is not just a constitutional option, it is a constitutional obligation,” vanden Heuvel, the wealthy socialite who edits and publishes the leftwing Nation magazine, continued, “one even the Tea Party will have trouble denying.”

The Tea Party may feel otherwise. In the days since Geithner first floated this trial balloon, the idea that Obama can act unilaterally to head off the debt ceiling crisis by continuing to borrow money has been debunked by an array of constitutional scholars and conservative organizations—which reject the notion implicit in Geithner’s reading of the amendment that the debt ceiling is itself unconstitutional. [Check out cartoons on the national budget and deficit.]

“For Congress to limit the amount of the debt does not ‘question’ the ‘validity’ of the debt that has been ‘authorized by law,’” former federal Judge Michael McConnell wrote Monday. “At most, it means that paying the public debts and pension obligations of the United States, as they become due, has priority over all other spending.” Contrary to what those like vanden Heuvel assert, the public debt clause “does not create a back-door method for the Administration to borrow more money without congressional authorization” said McConnell, now the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University Law School.

A “plain reading” of the amendment, as vanden Heuvel urges, indicates clearly that it applies only to debts already incurred, not the preservation of the ability to borrow more money—which is not the only course of action available to keep the government underneath the debt ceiling.

“Default,” Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson wrote Thursday in the Washington Examiner, “is a political choice. Money still flows to the Treasury every day. As interest payments came due, the money would be there to pay them. As old debt was retired, new debt could be issued up to the current limit.” [See editorial cartoons on Obama.]

“There is no legal right or claim of the president to overturn Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution,” Wilson continued, “which gives the House of Representatives the sole power to originate ‘the raising of revenue.’ And let's be clear, adding new debt is new revenue.”

It is clear that the president’s intention has, from the beginning, been to use the approach of the debt limit to force Congress to agree to a tax increase--a political calculation that has backfired badly. Obama is now faced with the very real possibility that, for the first time, the nation will default. If it does, he will have no one to blame but himself.

Tags:
deficit and national debt,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (31)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The debt limit is imposed pursuant to statute, i.e., law. The Constitution requires honoring of valid debt, authorized by law. Any debt assumed by Congress or the President which causes the total amount of debt to exceed the debt limit is not valid and authorized by law. Indeed, it is invalid and/or contrary to law, to wit the statutory debt limit. Thus, that portion of the debt which does not exceed the debt limit shall be paid, but there is no Constitutional mandate that exceeding the limit debt be paid. How to prioritize those debts that will be paid and those which won't is a matter of governmental discretion.

values vigilante of NY 2:45PM July 20, 2011

has little to do with the current issue of debt ceiling. This case was about whether a holder of a Government Bond can demand to be paid in gold. The court basically said that the gov't can pay back its obligations however it deems necessary as long as it is paying its obligations via a legal tender.

In fact, if you read the entire decision, it further solidifies that Congress is the only body in government that has the exclusive right to issue more debt on the countries behalf.

Nice try though.

warren of MS 7:28PM July 19, 2011

Those Republicans and conservatives who argue that President obama would violate federal law by ignoring the debt cieliing to pay down U.s. debt are ignoring a 1935 Supreme Court ruling that held that under Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. government is constitutionally obligated to pay its debts -- ceiling or no ceiling -- and that it is barred from defaulting on those debts.

Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it abundantly clear that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. . ."

Ruling in Perry v. United States -- a case in which a bondholder sued the federal government because it had refused to honor its obligation to pay its debt to him pursuant to the terms of the bond -- the justices declared that "By virtue of the power to borrow money 'on the credit of the United States,' the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the Government can give, its plighted faith.

"To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge, is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise, a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," the court ruled. "This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our Government…The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the Government, — upon which in an extremity its very life may depend.

"The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. 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…"

Therefore, no matter what the Tea Party movement says, the U.S. government is constitutionally mandated to pay its debts -- PERIOD, END OF STORY. A U.S. default on its debts is strictly prohibited by Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment -- and there's NOTHING the Tea Party Republicans can do about it, since they know they don't have anywhere near the two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate required to pass a constitutional amendment.

It's time for the Republicans to grow up and face reality.

Skeeter Sanders of VT 2:37PM July 15, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement