Unconstitutional for Obama to Raise Debt Ceiling Without Congress

July 7, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (32)

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 (32)

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

Section 4 of the fourteenth amendment stipulates that only the government must pay it's own debt. It has nothing to do with Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution. Raising revenue can only be done by the House and that includes borrowing, or, to the lawyers among us, debt.

Bruce Pestell of AZ 12:29PM December 18, 2012

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

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement