The end of the semester is always rough and I’ve had too many long nights, so tonight I am going to offer just one explanation about the debt clause in the Fourteenth Amendment:
The truth is that the 14th Amendment is clear that the debt ceiling is unconsitutional. The reality is that a politicized SCOTUS may not confirm that view. And therein lies the rub.
Let's not forget that in such cases the courts have no innate power to enforce their decisions. In fact, Biden and Yellen can, without even referencing the 14th Amendment, simply go on rolling over the debt after the debt ceiling is reached, and what's anyone going to do about it? The Supreme Court has destroyed its own popular support and cannot call upon the people to back it, as it was able to do in Watergate days. It has been enfeebled by its own hubris, and the unpopularity of its ideology.
Cheryl, the Democrats are in the awkward position of trying to save the rule of law. When Republicans pull outrageous unilateral stunts like this to weaken the institutions, the Democrats can’t respond with unilateral actions of their own without the risk of causing further damage. Which gives the GOP vandals what they’re after. They don’t have to be cautious, but the Democrats do. In this case Biden just might rescue the law by acting unilaterally. The interesting question, as I see it, is whether the deep pockets behind the GOP will allow the House radicals to wreak economic havoc in order to get their way. My guess is that there are puppet masters on both sides of the issue; roughly categorized as religious zealots on one side and industrial and financial moguls on the other. Probably with some players with a tent in each camp.
Alas. I expect that liberty and justice for all would sell itself were it not also a call for personal and collective responsibility. Organized crime gets to murder people and brazen it out. We still don't know what happened to Hoffa. But how much predatory behavior are we willing to tolerate. It seems to me that a logical corollary of the golden rule is that those observed shafting others will, when it suits them, shaft unto you. You can fight fire with fire, and firefighters often do, but you can't fight lies with lies nor corruption with corruption. That's the daunting price of doing it right.
".... there are puppet masters on both sides.." In that supposition, you are dead on the money Jim. The puppet masters who finance campaigns of both sides have created 'addicts'. Only we the voters can right this ship of state. It's past time we did; Citizens United must be smashed back to hell whence it came.
It has been thus since I was a sentient being, at least. When Republicans hold the White House the words "federal debt" are rarely heard in the halls of Congress. When a Democrat sits in the Oval Office we hear little else. Now insurrectionists, who have control of the House and have zero respect for the Constitution, are more than willing to destroy the US by failing to honor the debt -- much of which was caused by the actions of Republicans: TWO unfunded wars and TWO obscene tax cuts.
Such a treatment of the debt would cause a 'nervousness' in the financial markets that would make the aftermath of the SVB collapse look like a mild case of the vapors. As with any other purely executive action that isn't soundly based in the Constitution and existing legislation, the notion that the debt might get paid under one party's administration and might not under another is inimical to effective governance and an invitation to economic catastrophe. The only effective, straightforward, and sustainable resolution to this issue is the legislative removal of the debt ceiling (HR 415) and a serious discussion in Congress and between Congress and the Executive Branch about resolving the budget deficit and the ongoing growth of the national debt. Mr. Biden's budget proposal accomplishes some of that and, should the Republicans grow tired of performing for the press, some action might, in fact, result. Bill Clinton managed a balanced budget for four years (1998-2001) and, by the end of 2000, the debt/GDP ration was 33.6% compared to 124% currently. No reason other than Republican intransigence why it couldn't be done again while maintaining the social and military security systems this country depends on.
There is another solution embedded in MMT (the theory, not the current left right back and forth over it, which is mostly wrong on both sides). Money is a made-up thing. The whole business of creating it, and then taxing people who have it to fund the government could be changed, or at least partially.
One of the few things that worked pretty well in the old soviet system was the combining of the functions of the central bank and the government's treasury. The only really big flaw in what they did is that it enabled significant corruption in the communist party. But, the basic idea that as money is created, just set aside some percentage of it for used by the government (i.e. enabling the government to command some percentage of the economy) is sound.
The dance we go through with payroll taxes could gradually be replaced. Instead of noting on each person's paycheck how much is being withheld for taxes, and then going through an income tax reconciliation process once a year (or quarterly), we could just note how much each person's economic activity as measured by their paychecks has enabled "we the people" governmental functions.
The tension between democracy and meritocracy would remain, so there would have to be a national wealth tax at some rate, so as to reduce, preclude, or eliminate (choose your goal or values here) the aristocracy.
The transition would have to be very gradual, spread over several decades so as not to be disruptive. We could start by converting federal employees to this system, starting with the post office. The central bank would then just start transferring to the Treasury Department newly created funds equivalent to what the postal workers earn for the common good over and above their incomes. Economic activity always generates more wealth in the economy than what is the sum of the individual transactions involved, so there is zero risk in such a change. Again, it worked perfectly well in the old soviet system.
Now, it might be a good idea for the Treasury to continue to float some public debt in the fiction that it needs to do so, as opposed to just drawing newly created funds from the Fed combined with what it would take in from wealth taxes. As Hamilton rightly pointed out, public debt is a powerful tool for influencing things like inflation. It also provides a good place to park accumulated wealth for some entities, including foreign governments.
I have heard this said, but I don’t think it would happen. Our overall economy is strong and “the markets” are heavily invested in all aspects of America. They would carry on.
The GOP has substituted hostage-taking for governance for quite some time. Due to their small majority in the House, taking extreme actions is their only leverage. The Senate was successful with hostage-taking over filling open Supreme Court seats, which explains why McConnell can afford to sit this one out.
It's disheartening to hear the booming silence of MitchMcConnell and the supposed grown ups in the senate. Since there's always scheming going on, I wonder what scheme Senate silence is furthering?
Mitch presents the pretense of emotional adulthood when it suits him, yet regrets he had only one soul to sell for his partisan and personal dominance.
When the economy crashes, the least of us run out of money first and sell off, then the middle of us do the same in tranches as those with limitless supplies of money (the backers of the Federalist Society) buy up the sudden bounty of properties for pennies on the dollar
This the Plan
The Supreme Court of the Federalists will rule against the 14th Amendment citing some “Originalist” malarky invented by Sam “The Sham” Alito and seconded by Clarance “Up Yours Libs” Thomas
It will be all nice and legal”ish”
Point being, Billionaires have the WereWolfAll to weather the depression that follows. They care not if Democracy survives. In fact, Democracy is an impediment; Mudsills are a nuisance and should not hold any power over them or the Dickensonian World they wish to return us too.
“The Feudal Lords had it right and its time we returned society back to its rightful cast system”
“Buy up bounties for pennies”... seems that is exactly what Jamie Dimon just did with Republic Bank. Thats exactly what Mnuchin did with the housing crash of 2008. Came in and swooped up houses for pennies.
Good luck wrapping up the semester. Thanks for all your time and energy making us all smarter and wiser.
My husband and I are almost former First Republic clients, just 1 account left to close and our long relationship with this fine ( yes, the rank and file employees are excellent. It’s the powers that be who screwed it up) bank. We have no desire to have any association whatsoever with Jamie Diman. We are now banking at a local credit union.
Interesting. I am trying to unplug from JPM Chase. Its cumbersome because all my bills are paid online thru them, cc card, mortgage, direct deposit, etc. I guess the first step is to find an alternative with a solid online portal.
The best decision I ever made was to remove myself from one of the local banks & keep all of my finances through a credit union. I recommend that highly!!
Maggie, I’m with you! Credit Union has been my one and only for 10+ years. Costco visa is all I have outside of that. If only cash was as convenient with big purchases/gas.
I spent part of yesterday afternoon reorganizing all my automatic payments, etc. We do not have a mortgage (renters now, thanks 2008) or credit cards, so it’s been rather painless, but there are still auto deposits to switch which may be a bit more complicated. I’m afraid JPM is going to completely dismantle the FR model of client service - sitting at a desk with a banker, sharing personal stories, becoming friends, caring. Our branch manager knows our account number by heart! We need Katie Porter to remind Dimon once again what a squeeze he is.
"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy."
"But it remains true that, at some institutions that engaged in inappropriate conduct before, and may yet again, the buck still stops nowhere. Responsibility remains so diffuse, and top executives so insulated, that any misconduct could again be considered more a symptom of the institution’s culture than a result of the willful actions of any single individual."
The "rule of law" thinking of Obama's former Attorney General, Eric Holder. The unacknowledged elephant in the room would seem to be that when the size of "institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them" they are way too %$#@& large! (Or our taste for responsibility is too small. It's not really " government of the people, by the people, for the people" when "the banks own the place"
That and how can there be crime without a perpetrator? Somewhere criminal decisions or criminally irresponsible choices are being made, or if not truly criminal are destructive enough to require significant corrective policies and actions.
This is a story as old as capitalism. They are, uniquely, in a position to profit from the same economic downturns that wipe out average working people or those who’ve put their money into 401Ks locked into the market or certain stocks.
"Why the GOP May Actually Want a Second Great Depression"
Thanks for sharing Hartmann’s commentary about how wealthy people manipulate our politics, economy and social order. He sums it up well.
The gun violence we face in the streets is devastating and so is the violence we face from the “white collar” malice and crime perpetrated by wealthy people. They’re all just as bad as the original slave owners who declared war on the country so they could continue their corrupt practices.
Too bad they were given so much leeway to continue their domination after the “civil” war. History is rhyming today as the wealthy fund the Rs’ attempts to dismantle the letter and spirit of our democracy.
We the people need to show them that the power is really with the people. Let’s vote in people who care about public service and not serving only themselves.
Public service, for the public? I like the sound of that.
"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities." - Lincoln
Ron, ahhh, you read Hartmann too? I have to be careful when reading his revelations so as not to surrender completely to the perception of me becoming er, “biased” lol
He screams “I’m warning you people, damnit, take heed
As I said above, I suspect that if it comes to it Thomas and Alito will vote for financial disaster, but I think a majority will overrule them. And unless you have access to the minutes of the Illuminati, I believe your conspiratorial musing will turn out to be fanciful. The bankers will back the debt in the end. Better they devil they know, and all that.
Like the hyenas in the Lion King, the Federalist Society lionized the traitor elected in 2016 as a means to their end. And we know what Pride Land looked like after they came to power.
But I think that despite the extreme and awful decisions that this Supreme Court has handed down, that at least two of the 6 "Extremes" would join the liberals and invalidate a law that violates the Constitution. After all, what could be more clearly written than that?
I believe the answer may actually come from the Dems in the House with their "discharge petition". I am confident that there are a flurry of phone calls from the Oligarchs and the titans of banking to some Republican House Reps and Senators telling them that they didn't "pay them to wreck the economy and their precious businesses".
But in lieu of a clever strategy from Jeffries and Co, President Biden will act to protect the faith and credit of our nation. Let 'em sue.
Delegitimatizing SCOTUS would have vast reprecussions down the road when Republicans eventually regain power, and it would give them some very powerful messaging ahead of the election. When you have a 3-legged stool you can't cut off one of the legs.
All you can do is regain the House and keep the Senate and presidency, impeach and appoint new justices, and legislate a code of conduct.
That 'rub' is all the more reason for ailing Senator Feinstein to resign and be replaced by a Democratic appointee so that the Senate can quickly confirm four new Justices to be appointed by the President to correct the political imbalance on the SCOTUS created by the defeated former president. Just the threat of doing that might be sufficient to accomplish an increase in the debt limit as clearly appropriate according the the 14th Amendment. (And it wouldn't hurt chances for gun control legislaion, abortion rights, and voters rights to pass as well.) This is known as playing hardball.
FDR threatened it during the thirties, and that was enough to enable his remedies for the Great Depression to survive without the Court being expanded.
The president and Democrats need to stop being such losers and play hardball the way the Republicans do. Obama should have appointed Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in a recess appointment, and then sued the Congress to take action on his appointment. But no, he had to take the highroad and there’s 1 million other examples of that. The highroad doesn’t work with these radical right wing operatives, who are trying to undermine the federal government. The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous. Just do it, Joe. Let the Congress take it up to USSC. And if we lose there, ignore the ruling. The Supremes have no enforcement mechanism. Biden can say, the Court has lost its legitimacy and has become a
partisan tool--there sure is a lot of
evidence of that. And the House will move to impeach and by the time that all happens it will be way past 2024. But the Dems won’t do this they would rather be right than win.
Does a poisoned SCOTUS require obedience? I'm just wondering. We've been here before, with the Taney court before the Civil War. The current SCOTUS thinks they are above the law, above precedent, above tradition, and above both Congress and the Executive. Maybe ignoring a few galling rulings of theirs will cause them to examine themselves and reexamine their role in government. I'm not sure anything else will do that.
If shove comes to push, I suspect, strongly, that the court—over the objections of Thomas and Alito—would duck the issue as a political question. Interestingly, Gorsuch (recently bruised in the press) is very, very “conservative,” but also very intent on the literal meaning of words. He might hold that Sec. 4 of the Amendment means just what it says.
"...they recognized that a refusal to meet the nation’s financial obligations would dismantle the government..."
Dismantle the federal governments is precisely the aim of Republican fiscal terrorists. Or at least neuter it. They will stop at nothing — and should be treated accordingly.
It would be great if you could outline the pros and cons of the argument. In your essay and so it seems to me reading the quote from the constitution, it seems like it is a slam dunk clear thing: not raising the debt limit violates the 14th amendment. Things I read in the NYTimes are more wishy washy. Without defending any opinions that you disagree with, might you help us (me) understand what the debate is about? What is sincere and what disingenuous, in your opinion?
There can be no debt ceiling, It was Unconstitutional in 1917, it is still Unconstitutional today. Just because no one questioned it for 106 year does not suddenly give it legal standing.
Fay: Thats how it looks to me. But, somehow I get from the news that there is some kind of debate and that, for example, Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama was not so confident about this. Was that just fear of a biased supreme court or a real issue of some kind?
At least for the duration of this 38 second video, Trump was firmly on the
side of Heather, you, me and most who read this blog.
Hi Andy, it is not just Amendment 14, Section 4; Article 6 Section 1, says essentially the same thing. Constitutionally the US MUST pay its debts. We contracted for those debts in good faith, we must pay them in good faith. President Biden is absolutely correct, this is not negotiable. The House of Representatives can negotiate on the New Budget (for fiscal year 2023/2024) until the cows come home. those are not debts until voted and signed into law. But these are debts already argued, negotiated, signed into law and spent. The time for negotiation is long passed.
This is exactly what needs to be drilled into our current Speaker of the House, and his Representative Minions which are actually the ones running the House of Representatives. President Biden needs to have this meeting with the Senate and House leaders . In doing so he needs to give them this history lesson that Heather has so eloquently written. Then he needs to look at McFarty, straight into his eyes, and tell him: “The debt ceiling will be raised. The bills will continue to be paid. There’s no negotiating that’s going to be done to get this done. So take your stupid minion ass back to your other minions and explain it to them.”
Fay: I can't argue with you, I am not informed. And the text of the constitution seems to read, to me, as though you are simply correct. But, as I commented above, the NYTimes readings lead me to think that there is some more nuance. Is there really no constitutional scholar of good faith that has any qualms about any of what you wrote above?
There are many who know the legal side far better than I, hopefully one will reply. As for the New York Times, I no longer have the trust in printed news that I used to have. When I was a young woman, you could trust what you read in the papers and saw on TV. If the reporter or TV anchor erred they recanted. Today some wealthy dictator tells the 'employee' what to say or write. They try to cover their liability by claiming to be 'fair' to both sides, even when one side is obviously spewing lies. As to the Constitution, I read and interpret the words exactly as they are written, but sometimes I have to consider the history of the time. I would never venture to "guess" what the Framers were thinking, to me, that is the depth of stupidity and ego.
Fay, HCR did a very good job in today's LFAA putting the 14th Constitutional Amendment & all subsections in their proper historical context which yields a "living" Constitution in 2023 battles. I loved 'Prosser on Torts' in Law School for the same reasons; we benefit greatly by 'Richardson on 19th Century Law'.
I'm only playing a Devil's Advocate here, but isn't what you've stated about longevity of a law and unquestioning observance of that law not "suddenly" giving legal standing exactly what the SCOTUS Gang of Six decided about Roe v Wade?
I'm now wondering if there can ever be such a thing as "settled law."
I think that your wondering is an interesting perspective. It was "settled law" (writ into the constitution) that Black slaves were to be considered 3/5 of a person for tabulating a State's population. That is a perspective of the time that changed over time to realize that particular slice was not right, ethically or morally and corrected by both amending the constitution as well as by creating case law that determined that Blacks were, in fact, people too. Plessy v. Ferguson said that race-separated schools that were "separate but equal" was constitutionally valid. Brown v. Board of Education overturned that decision by noting that "separate but equal" was not equal and that racial segregation in public schools was wrong.
I am sure there are others, this was the first that came to mind for me (although the Dred Scott decision out of the Taney court is another sterling example of a decision being overturned). To my knowledge, the Dobbs decision was the first decision of SCROTUS that took away a previously granted right rather than ruling that cases that ruled there were rights denied to certain classes of people were wrong.
Good example, Ally. The irritant for me is the present presumption that goes with declaring settled law or precedents or conventions to be inconvenient or not what the originators meant and thusly acting as though such never existed and boxing us in to prove the truthfulness of such before they will cede to any conditions or obligations that come and came, to this date, with such being in agreement. If you see what I meant. 'Twas a time when they had to write and get a majority vote in favor of a law to correct or absolve all of the obligations or settled law. Now, they need only to deny validity of what the majority may have agreed was settled, worthy, in the interest of the reputation and aspirations of this union, this democracy, this economy, this standing among men and nations, the integrity of all withstanding. If you see what I mean. The conundrum that now distinguishes disruption as ideology from progress toward goals as politics.
There’s all parts of the 14th Amendment the ‘Pubbies and SCOTUS are hellbent on ignoring.
Let’s see…
There’s the Due Process clause.
There’s the bit about those engaged in active rebellion against the US not being allowed to serve in Congress. Or be President or VP or any other elected official of the government of the US
There’s the full faith and credit clause.
There’s the part about apportionment and how everyone born here is a citizen (jus solis)
Pubbies! I love it 😍 It’s kind of like their obsession with the Bible. Just ignore all the parts you don’t like and focus on that obscure line from The Book of Armaments or some other nonsense
We, the People have the will. But we need to vote out the minority that's standing in the way. Can't do much about SCOTUS at this point, though.
SCOTUS decided way back in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison that they were the final arbiters on the law and that they had the last say in what the Constitution actually means and allows. Need to fix that, somehow.
It seems clear and unambiguous to me; the US Constitution requires that the US gov’t. will pay its bills. Period, stop.
What seems just as clear, threats, just the threat, to prevent the US gov’t. from honoring its obligations undermine our “full faith and credit,” thereby undermine constitutional authority, and thus are treasonous. Period, stop.
I have been thinking a lot lately (don't snicker please) about the pressures put upon our way of life, the stresses that the pandemic has put our traditions, our national image(s) of ourselves, and so on. It seems to me that when a crisis occurs, emboldened forces rise to take over the stage by claiming to have the ability to lead the rest of us out of the mire. This usually involves taking much of the government prisoner, to bend existing ways to a single person's will. A democracy by definition relies on the voices of the people; a republic relies on the minds of the chosen representatives of those people. Many branches of this complicated form of government are poorly understood in their functions, their duties, and their limits. That leads to questions of what the responsibilities are, how are they enforced, and where is the oversight. You can fill in your own sentiments about this. My problem is whether an agency is doing what it is intended to do, or whether corruption has set in. At that point, the voices of the people are drowned out by rules and practices designed to protect the status of members of that agency, because they feel they are best suited for the job requirements. The truth is that agencies can be eliminated, staff can be replaced, and not much upheaval is noticed. Time and time again, an agency we rely on fails its mandate because it was corrupted by some adjustment in definition, (police in Uvalde who by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1989 ruled that they, the police, have no duty to protect and serve,) contrary to when the average citizen thinks. Does that imply that law enforcement can choose which issues to involve themselves in? The pandemic created stress on just about every institution in the entire world, and the fallout will in my mind not be recovered from for decades. A redesign of the ways our systems work to reflect what we learned about functionality (health care for instance) requires steady minds, preferably without an ego-driven mindset, a willingness to listen, to attempt to understand the other points of view, and hopefully for no direct personal gain. The world is always changing, nothing remains the same. If we hire our officeholders by electing them, to ably confront the issues associated with those changes, we had better be aware of qualifications and motive for candidacy. Should we allow the resources of our country, physical, financial, educational, social, and other societal elements, to be denied to a segment of our citizens? Who should decide which city or state residents be allowed potable water, decent health care, welfare for helpless folks, which children can have access to schools? Is there a limit to what the government should provide based on ethnicity or country of origin? Who decides that the federal minimum wage should remain at $7.25/hour, a rate established in 2009? How do we prepare for the future when a sizeable segment of out population wants to revert to past codes of conduct and government? How is it possible that we could default on our debts? Aren't protections in place to avoid that possibility? We think of the Supreme Court as a group of nine, who ultimately decide what the Constitution intended. But when a case is decided by a 5-4 decision, really only a single individual has prevailed. Think about that. We live in a society resting on myth, the City on the Hill myth, the Manifest Destiny myth, the American Exceptionalism myth, and so on; much of our mythical power arises from our geography, that is it inconvenient for us to be attacked. We claim to be a peace-loving nation who we think should be the example for the rest of the world. Why then, has this country not been in a war for only 21 years since 1776? I s that how we want to define our national identity, 21 years of peacetime in 239 years of existence? The Christian tradition that powers much of our identity is not peace-loving, God is not averse to war, read the histories. GW Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. (Denied by the WH.) Where is the imagination hiding that will be needed to escape the mistakes of our past and make room for all of us Americans?
Ed, discovering that our lives rest on a bunch of assumptions is scary. Discovering that much of the history we learned in school was biased and incomplete is wrenching. Wile E. Coyote panicked and fell when he discovers (several times, if my childhood memory serves) he is walking on thin air. That's what this moment feels like. We have collectively discovered our institutions are not what we thought they were. Some of us panic and dive back for the cliff, only to fall. Some realize we were always walking on air, and look around for ways to do/order things that better fit the newly perceived reality. Myths are not falsehoods, they are expressions of what we value and how we cope with the world. As such, they are foundational to our thinking and actions. The problem is, they need to change sometimes. Our challenge: do we adapt our thinking and actions to the world as we see it now, or do we panic and splat on the rocks?
“Resting on myth...”is scarily in line with my own observation. Having lived most of our adult lives outside the USA, both my spouse and I have observed our country’s mentality to be over-whelming militaristic. It became increasingly difficult to defend international “interference” by our country.
If the Scotus won't agree that the 14th amendement renders the Treasury debt limit unconstitutional then a leaf should be taken out of FDR's playbook to show them that the people are the boss.
Certainly, Vivian, with pleasure. FDR was facing a loaded, right-wing SCOTUS, as now, and was losing important parts of his New Deal ....as now....through their decisions. Big Social Security cases were coming up and FDR was afraid that they would be nixed too. So he introduced Judicial Procedures Reform Bill in 1937 and used he used his famous "fireside chats" for promotion. The bill would have allowed him to name a new judge for every current member of the Court aged over 70. This could have given him the edge. He was aware that the Bill was unlikely to pass but the threat was enough. The upcoming decisions went FDR's way.
Stuart You seem to be referring to the story about ‘the vote that saved nine.’ FDR, after an overwhelming 1936 re-election sought to target the Supreme Court, which had rejected various New Deal legislation. Among other things, he was concerned that the SC would reject his carefully crafted Social Security aLw [Justice Frankfurter surreptitiously helped craft this law, but that’s another story.]
In fact much of the New Deal legislation was badly written. At least one law (AAA?—my notes are upstairs) was rejected 9-0. But back to ‘the vote that saved nine.’ FDR’s effort to pack the SC failed—it was not popular and he had initiated it arrogantly without talking with senators, including key Senator Robinson.
‘The vote to save nine’ purportedly was by Justice Owen Roberts. In fact, as subsequent records reveal, this vote was initially made in Court discussions BEFORE FDR’s court packing initiative. In addition to public sources, I had an opportunity to discuss this with Owen Robert’s son in 1958.
Heather, I bet there’s not one person in Congress who knows the information you gave us. There are so many lawmakers yet these facts elude them. Today, my Congressman, Mark DeSaulnier, revealed “Plan B” that the Dems will propose if the debt ceiling debacle isn’t agreed upon. DeSaulnier and others referred to a “discharge petition”. All of the Dems will sign this petition but they need to convince 5 Republicans to go along with it. The petition forces the Republicans to make a debt limit vote. This can be dicey but it’s a bold move by the otherwise polite Dems. The issue is finding 5 Repubs who will be brave and go against the norm, probably moderate Repubs. If there’s any left, that is.
A story on NPR' today talked about going to the 10 or so Rs whose districts voted for Biden as well as those Rs who won very close elections in order to try and find those "willing" Congress people.
No, it was the commentator's opinion, but he was their head political reporter. (Can't recall his name at the moment. ) i don't know if a poll would have been helpful.
Thank you Heather for putting the debt in historical perspective. Unfortunate we have Radicals in our government bent on destroying our country by not honoring our financial obligations.
I think that is exactly what Heather mentioned in her Tuesday Chat on FB. She also wanted to give credit to George HW Bush for bringing down the debt which caused Newt to engineer his defeat in the next election.
As Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich never followed through with his threat of government default, but he laid the groundwork for the hostage-style tactics surrounding the debt ceiling that Republicans are using now. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna53279173#
"...The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned..."
The meaning is very simple and very clear. We will always repay our debts.
The phrase "The full faith and credit of the United States" is heavy with meaning. Our monetary system is based on faith. People around the world believe that our money will hold its value through time. It won't just evaporate tomorrow. History offers many examples of monetary systems that suddenly ceased to have any value.
Our "fiat" system of money offers many advantages over monetary systems backed by gold, for example. Because we are a monetarily sovereign nation, we can create money when necessary to pay our debts. The House could refuse to issue new debt by suspending the practice of "deficit spending", relying entirely on revenue for spending. But that's not the issue with the debt ceiling, which refers to money already spent.
Congress routinely commits to spending beyond revenue receipts, which we refer to as "deficit spending". Treasury issues bonds and various instruments as a way to finance that deficit spending. The Federal Reserve buys and sells those bonds on the Open Market.
The viability of our system depends on us making good on our promise to redeem those Treasury instruments on demand. If we fail to return a bond-holder's money, it means we are defaulting on our debt. It would represent our breaking our iron-clad promise to ALWAYS repay our debts. It would break the faith. We need to keep the faith: "the full faith and credit of the United States".
Perhaps the “Pubbies” are on to something. If they refuse to pay the debts I guess my interpretation is that not paying my taxes is good to go too. It seems to fit the new conservatism. Heck, let’s all go out to the drive away for supper tonight.
The term “drive away” comes from people who bought the gasoline and drove away without paying. Nowadays prepay has ended that era. I thought it appropriate for a legislature that thinks it can “drive away.” In Missoula students often ate at the Stocks and made a run to avoid paying. A couple of waitresses paid the bills for the thieving students. When I was a student we caught fish and harvested deer and elk and ducks and geese and worked our butts off, eating what we caught or going without. No matter what we paid our bills. I despise this group who says it won’t pay the bills.
Ah, I see now what you were referring to. I'm trying to think of the term we used for restaurant patrons who didn't pay or left bad checks. At any rate, the tabs and bounced check got "posted" on the wall behind the register, so no repeats. Long time ago. Familiar with the lifestyle you describe. A lot of sharing. For us, it was just life. I still forage.
Today we're wondering: do we, as citizens of the US, have legal standing to sue the House "Freedoom" Caucus for threatening to imperil our personal wealth, such as it is, and for threatening to jeopardize our economic well-being?
America needs more discretionary spending, not less. Give America Biden's second infrastructure bill. Watch our economy grow and our national debt decrease. There is nothing Republicans fear more than a successful America.
So, as usual, the government for the people, by the people, etc, etc comes down,to a pretty shaky proposition. Our president chosen every 4 years not by the 150 million people that voted for or against them but by a handful of them - the outdated and ill understood Electoral College . And now the economic balance of the entire world is being decided by the same number of people.
What could possibly go wrong?
(I should have moved to Canada when I was dodging the Vietnam War. They had Gordon Lightfoot 【RIP】)
Canada has its own set of problems. I wasn't a draft dodger (female exception) but like many others of the era, I thought they had the social equity thing worked out. Then I learned the truth, especially regarding the treatment of indigenous people. And stayed home to become an activist. I will not live long enough to know if my contribution made a difference or not. At the time (and for some time after, until recently) I felt we had made a difference. And maybe we did. If we can get through the mess we are in right now, I think things will come together.
I have been researching the 14th Amendment. It is clear that the GOP are infringing on this Ammendment. Yet we are living in times where rules have become meaningless.
The GOP have dug their heels in and any backtracking would be perceived as weakness. Weakness for the sake of the Nation will be our downfall.
I don't see the inflection point when they will understand that this isn't merely a talking point.
Just read through it (the 14th Amendment). Previously I was mostly familiar with and interested in the equal treatment under the law parts. An amazing amendment.
Now Biden should quote this amendment in defense of not using the debt ceiling as legislational (a made up word :-) ) leverage.
What a fabulously told history, Dr. Richardson! Without explicit reference to the present, you have set the current crisis in dramatic relief so that readers can see it for what it is: a struggle of average citizens against the privileged or crazed few who have stacked the political cards in their favor. May the Fourteenth Amendment prevail against those who would destroy democracy to win.
The truth is that the 14th Amendment is clear that the debt ceiling is unconsitutional. The reality is that a politicized SCOTUS may not confirm that view. And therein lies the rub.
Let's not forget that in such cases the courts have no innate power to enforce their decisions. In fact, Biden and Yellen can, without even referencing the 14th Amendment, simply go on rolling over the debt after the debt ceiling is reached, and what's anyone going to do about it? The Supreme Court has destroyed its own popular support and cannot call upon the people to back it, as it was able to do in Watergate days. It has been enfeebled by its own hubris, and the unpopularity of its ideology.
If a Repub Prez were in office, I have no doubt they would do that. But Dems, for better and for worse, are timid about these things.
Cheryl, the Democrats are in the awkward position of trying to save the rule of law. When Republicans pull outrageous unilateral stunts like this to weaken the institutions, the Democrats can’t respond with unilateral actions of their own without the risk of causing further damage. Which gives the GOP vandals what they’re after. They don’t have to be cautious, but the Democrats do. In this case Biden just might rescue the law by acting unilaterally. The interesting question, as I see it, is whether the deep pockets behind the GOP will allow the House radicals to wreak economic havoc in order to get their way. My guess is that there are puppet masters on both sides of the issue; roughly categorized as religious zealots on one side and industrial and financial moguls on the other. Probably with some players with a tent in each camp.
Alas. I expect that liberty and justice for all would sell itself were it not also a call for personal and collective responsibility. Organized crime gets to murder people and brazen it out. We still don't know what happened to Hoffa. But how much predatory behavior are we willing to tolerate. It seems to me that a logical corollary of the golden rule is that those observed shafting others will, when it suits them, shaft unto you. You can fight fire with fire, and firefighters often do, but you can't fight lies with lies nor corruption with corruption. That's the daunting price of doing it right.
That said, you can still give 'em hell.
".... there are puppet masters on both sides.." In that supposition, you are dead on the money Jim. The puppet masters who finance campaigns of both sides have created 'addicts'. Only we the voters can right this ship of state. It's past time we did; Citizens United must be smashed back to hell whence it came.
It has been thus since I was a sentient being, at least. When Republicans hold the White House the words "federal debt" are rarely heard in the halls of Congress. When a Democrat sits in the Oval Office we hear little else. Now insurrectionists, who have control of the House and have zero respect for the Constitution, are more than willing to destroy the US by failing to honor the debt -- much of which was caused by the actions of Republicans: TWO unfunded wars and TWO obscene tax cuts.
How ironic!
25% of our present national debt was incurred during Trump's time in office.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-national-us-debt-1774764
Sadly, that seems true Cheryl.
Such a treatment of the debt would cause a 'nervousness' in the financial markets that would make the aftermath of the SVB collapse look like a mild case of the vapors. As with any other purely executive action that isn't soundly based in the Constitution and existing legislation, the notion that the debt might get paid under one party's administration and might not under another is inimical to effective governance and an invitation to economic catastrophe. The only effective, straightforward, and sustainable resolution to this issue is the legislative removal of the debt ceiling (HR 415) and a serious discussion in Congress and between Congress and the Executive Branch about resolving the budget deficit and the ongoing growth of the national debt. Mr. Biden's budget proposal accomplishes some of that and, should the Republicans grow tired of performing for the press, some action might, in fact, result. Bill Clinton managed a balanced budget for four years (1998-2001) and, by the end of 2000, the debt/GDP ration was 33.6% compared to 124% currently. No reason other than Republican intransigence why it couldn't be done again while maintaining the social and military security systems this country depends on.
There is another solution embedded in MMT (the theory, not the current left right back and forth over it, which is mostly wrong on both sides). Money is a made-up thing. The whole business of creating it, and then taxing people who have it to fund the government could be changed, or at least partially.
One of the few things that worked pretty well in the old soviet system was the combining of the functions of the central bank and the government's treasury. The only really big flaw in what they did is that it enabled significant corruption in the communist party. But, the basic idea that as money is created, just set aside some percentage of it for used by the government (i.e. enabling the government to command some percentage of the economy) is sound.
The dance we go through with payroll taxes could gradually be replaced. Instead of noting on each person's paycheck how much is being withheld for taxes, and then going through an income tax reconciliation process once a year (or quarterly), we could just note how much each person's economic activity as measured by their paychecks has enabled "we the people" governmental functions.
The tension between democracy and meritocracy would remain, so there would have to be a national wealth tax at some rate, so as to reduce, preclude, or eliminate (choose your goal or values here) the aristocracy.
The transition would have to be very gradual, spread over several decades so as not to be disruptive. We could start by converting federal employees to this system, starting with the post office. The central bank would then just start transferring to the Treasury Department newly created funds equivalent to what the postal workers earn for the common good over and above their incomes. Economic activity always generates more wealth in the economy than what is the sum of the individual transactions involved, so there is zero risk in such a change. Again, it worked perfectly well in the old soviet system.
Now, it might be a good idea for the Treasury to continue to float some public debt in the fiction that it needs to do so, as opposed to just drawing newly created funds from the Fed combined with what it would take in from wealth taxes. As Hamilton rightly pointed out, public debt is a powerful tool for influencing things like inflation. It also provides a good place to park accumulated wealth for some entities, including foreign governments.
O
I have heard this said, but I don’t think it would happen. Our overall economy is strong and “the markets” are heavily invested in all aspects of America. They would carry on.
And it's corruption.
The GOP has substituted hostage-taking for governance for quite some time. Due to their small majority in the House, taking extreme actions is their only leverage. The Senate was successful with hostage-taking over filling open Supreme Court seats, which explains why McConnell can afford to sit this one out.
It's disheartening to hear the booming silence of MitchMcConnell and the supposed grown ups in the senate. Since there's always scheming going on, I wonder what scheme Senate silence is furthering?
Mitch presents the pretense of emotional adulthood when it suits him, yet regrets he had only one soul to sell for his partisan and personal dominance.
And the BS he has endured from tfg is so offensive and his wife has been so sullied, I just can’t imagine
Mostly though, they both sold their souls many moons ago.
Georgia
The Gang of Six is owned by Billionaires
When the economy crashes, the least of us run out of money first and sell off, then the middle of us do the same in tranches as those with limitless supplies of money (the backers of the Federalist Society) buy up the sudden bounty of properties for pennies on the dollar
This the Plan
The Supreme Court of the Federalists will rule against the 14th Amendment citing some “Originalist” malarky invented by Sam “The Sham” Alito and seconded by Clarance “Up Yours Libs” Thomas
It will be all nice and legal”ish”
Point being, Billionaires have the WereWolfAll to weather the depression that follows. They care not if Democracy survives. In fact, Democracy is an impediment; Mudsills are a nuisance and should not hold any power over them or the Dickensonian World they wish to return us too.
“The Feudal Lords had it right and its time we returned society back to its rightful cast system”
“Buy up bounties for pennies”... seems that is exactly what Jamie Dimon just did with Republic Bank. Thats exactly what Mnuchin did with the housing crash of 2008. Came in and swooped up houses for pennies.
Good luck wrapping up the semester. Thanks for all your time and energy making us all smarter and wiser.
My husband and I are almost former First Republic clients, just 1 account left to close and our long relationship with this fine ( yes, the rank and file employees are excellent. It’s the powers that be who screwed it up) bank. We have no desire to have any association whatsoever with Jamie Diman. We are now banking at a local credit union.
Interesting. I am trying to unplug from JPM Chase. Its cumbersome because all my bills are paid online thru them, cc card, mortgage, direct deposit, etc. I guess the first step is to find an alternative with a solid online portal.
The best decision I ever made was to remove myself from one of the local banks & keep all of my finances through a credit union. I recommend that highly!!
Maggie, I’m with you! Credit Union has been my one and only for 10+ years. Costco visa is all I have outside of that. If only cash was as convenient with big purchases/gas.
Going to explore that option...
I spent part of yesterday afternoon reorganizing all my automatic payments, etc. We do not have a mortgage (renters now, thanks 2008) or credit cards, so it’s been rather painless, but there are still auto deposits to switch which may be a bit more complicated. I’m afraid JPM is going to completely dismantle the FR model of client service - sitting at a desk with a banker, sharing personal stories, becoming friends, caring. Our branch manager knows our account number by heart! We need Katie Porter to remind Dimon once again what a squeeze he is.
My credit Union has been a pleasure to work with since the day I opened my account there.
"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy."
"But it remains true that, at some institutions that engaged in inappropriate conduct before, and may yet again, the buck still stops nowhere. Responsibility remains so diffuse, and top executives so insulated, that any misconduct could again be considered more a symptom of the institution’s culture than a result of the willful actions of any single individual."
The "rule of law" thinking of Obama's former Attorney General, Eric Holder. The unacknowledged elephant in the room would seem to be that when the size of "institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them" they are way too %$#@& large! (Or our taste for responsibility is too small. It's not really " government of the people, by the people, for the people" when "the banks own the place"
That and how can there be crime without a perpetrator? Somewhere criminal decisions or criminally irresponsible choices are being made, or if not truly criminal are destructive enough to require significant corrective policies and actions.
Dave Dalton Writes Dave Fake News - "𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧𝘧, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 (𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺) 𝘣𝘶𝘺 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳.
𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘞𝘰𝘭𝘧𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵;"
This is a story as old as capitalism. They are, uniquely, in a position to profit from the same economic downturns that wipe out average working people or those who’ve put their money into 401Ks locked into the market or certain stocks.
"Why the GOP May Actually Want a Second Great Depression"
https://hartmannreport.com/p/why-the-gop-may-actually-want-a-second?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
And "Do Billionaires Really Give a Rat's Ass about 'Woke' Issues?"
https://hartmannreport.com/p/do-billionaires-really-give-a-rats?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thanks for sharing Hartmann’s commentary about how wealthy people manipulate our politics, economy and social order. He sums it up well.
The gun violence we face in the streets is devastating and so is the violence we face from the “white collar” malice and crime perpetrated by wealthy people. They’re all just as bad as the original slave owners who declared war on the country so they could continue their corrupt practices.
Too bad they were given so much leeway to continue their domination after the “civil” war. History is rhyming today as the wealthy fund the Rs’ attempts to dismantle the letter and spirit of our democracy.
We the people need to show them that the power is really with the people. Let’s vote in people who care about public service and not serving only themselves.
These Neoliberal Confederates in “Capitalism is good for you” clothing have the “Court” now in their employ
Voting is essential and now our only hope. Sadly, that is recognized by the Robber Barons and is being dismantled
“Come back Woody Guthrie, come back to us now”
Do you mean, "Some will rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen"? Truer now than ever!
Willy Porter
https://youtu.be/dG1d_gKvtpk
Public service, for the public? I like the sound of that.
"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities." - Lincoln
Ron, ahhh, you read Hartmann too? I have to be careful when reading his revelations so as not to surrender completely to the perception of me becoming er, “biased” lol
He screams “I’m warning you people, damnit, take heed
Thanks for the articles Ron. I intuitively suspected how the morbidly rich got richer and you just proved it!
"Sam the Sham" - Thanks for that, Dave. Made me smile.
Wooly BULLY
I well remember! Ol' Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs. I was in high school when that one hit the airwaves. :D
“The Feudal Lords had it right and its time we returned society back to its rightful caste system”
As I said above, I suspect that if it comes to it Thomas and Alito will vote for financial disaster, but I think a majority will overrule them. And unless you have access to the minutes of the Illuminati, I believe your conspiratorial musing will turn out to be fanciful. The bankers will back the debt in the end. Better they devil they know, and all that.
Pip believed Miss Haversham was his benefactor; its my conspiritorial musing that Gorsuch et al actually know theirs
Bankers today? Same mindset as as the credit default swap crew of 2007? They believed they were above it all
Those with enough time and money to weather the storm understand the value of patience
and here all along I thought only the Chinese had the wisdom & forebearance to employ a (very) long term gameplan..
Like the hyenas in the Lion King, the Federalist Society lionized the traitor elected in 2016 as a means to their end. And we know what Pride Land looked like after they came to power.
In the stock trading world that has been known as "accumulation into strong hands by the composite operator" for the last 100 years.
Interesting to see JPMorgan picking up the pieces of the regional bank failures as the shareholders are screwed.
Interesting and very disheartening.
“The Feudal Lords had it right and its time we returned society back to its rightful cast system”. "Reaganomics" in a nutshell.
Many billionaires seem to imagine their money will always insulate them from the consequences of their exploitation: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
But I think that despite the extreme and awful decisions that this Supreme Court has handed down, that at least two of the 6 "Extremes" would join the liberals and invalidate a law that violates the Constitution. After all, what could be more clearly written than that?
I believe the answer may actually come from the Dems in the House with their "discharge petition". I am confident that there are a flurry of phone calls from the Oligarchs and the titans of banking to some Republican House Reps and Senators telling them that they didn't "pay them to wreck the economy and their precious businesses".
But in lieu of a clever strategy from Jeffries and Co, President Biden will act to protect the faith and credit of our nation. Let 'em sue.
Delegitimatizing SCOTUS would have vast reprecussions down the road when Republicans eventually regain power, and it would give them some very powerful messaging ahead of the election. When you have a 3-legged stool you can't cut off one of the legs.
All you can do is regain the House and keep the Senate and presidency, impeach and appoint new justices, and legislate a code of conduct.
That's not the intention. Continue to service our debt via either mentioned path. Then if MAGA sues, let the court decide.
But I love your last paragraph!
The "discharge petition" is a long shot right now but might work.
Just have to find those 5 "willing" Republicans to vote yes.
That 'rub' is all the more reason for ailing Senator Feinstein to resign and be replaced by a Democratic appointee so that the Senate can quickly confirm four new Justices to be appointed by the President to correct the political imbalance on the SCOTUS created by the defeated former president. Just the threat of doing that might be sufficient to accomplish an increase in the debt limit as clearly appropriate according the the 14th Amendment. (And it wouldn't hurt chances for gun control legislaion, abortion rights, and voters rights to pass as well.) This is known as playing hardball.
It has worked somewhere before hasn't it?
FDR threatened it during the thirties, and that was enough to enable his remedies for the Great Depression to survive without the Court being expanded.
The president and Democrats need to stop being such losers and play hardball the way the Republicans do. Obama should have appointed Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in a recess appointment, and then sued the Congress to take action on his appointment. But no, he had to take the highroad and there’s 1 million other examples of that. The highroad doesn’t work with these radical right wing operatives, who are trying to undermine the federal government. The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous. Just do it, Joe. Let the Congress take it up to USSC. And if we lose there, ignore the ruling. The Supremes have no enforcement mechanism. Biden can say, the Court has lost its legitimacy and has become a
partisan tool--there sure is a lot of
evidence of that. And the House will move to impeach and by the time that all happens it will be way past 2024. But the Dems won’t do this they would rather be right than win.
Does a poisoned SCOTUS require obedience? I'm just wondering. We've been here before, with the Taney court before the Civil War. The current SCOTUS thinks they are above the law, above precedent, above tradition, and above both Congress and the Executive. Maybe ignoring a few galling rulings of theirs will cause them to examine themselves and reexamine their role in government. I'm not sure anything else will do that.
If shove comes to push, I suspect, strongly, that the court—over the objections of Thomas and Alito—would duck the issue as a political question. Interestingly, Gorsuch (recently bruised in the press) is very, very “conservative,” but also very intent on the literal meaning of words. He might hold that Sec. 4 of the Amendment means just what it says.
"...they recognized that a refusal to meet the nation’s financial obligations would dismantle the government..."
Dismantle the federal governments is precisely the aim of Republican fiscal terrorists. Or at least neuter it. They will stop at nothing — and should be treated accordingly.
Heather:
It would be great if you could outline the pros and cons of the argument. In your essay and so it seems to me reading the quote from the constitution, it seems like it is a slam dunk clear thing: not raising the debt limit violates the 14th amendment. Things I read in the NYTimes are more wishy washy. Without defending any opinions that you disagree with, might you help us (me) understand what the debate is about? What is sincere and what disingenuous, in your opinion?
There can be no debt ceiling, It was Unconstitutional in 1917, it is still Unconstitutional today. Just because no one questioned it for 106 year does not suddenly give it legal standing.
Fay: Thats how it looks to me. But, somehow I get from the news that there is some kind of debate and that, for example, Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama was not so confident about this. Was that just fear of a biased supreme court or a real issue of some kind?
At least for the duration of this 38 second video, Trump was firmly on the
side of Heather, you, me and most who read this blog.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1152345117988200449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1152345117988200449%7Ctwgr%5E1bc66741d7348431f5bef8916f75b911923d1da2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F2paragraphs.com%2F2023%2F05%2Fkevin-mccarthy-sent-disturbing-trump-video-before-biden-showdown%2F
Hi Andy, it is not just Amendment 14, Section 4; Article 6 Section 1, says essentially the same thing. Constitutionally the US MUST pay its debts. We contracted for those debts in good faith, we must pay them in good faith. President Biden is absolutely correct, this is not negotiable. The House of Representatives can negotiate on the New Budget (for fiscal year 2023/2024) until the cows come home. those are not debts until voted and signed into law. But these are debts already argued, negotiated, signed into law and spent. The time for negotiation is long passed.
This is exactly what needs to be drilled into our current Speaker of the House, and his Representative Minions which are actually the ones running the House of Representatives. President Biden needs to have this meeting with the Senate and House leaders . In doing so he needs to give them this history lesson that Heather has so eloquently written. Then he needs to look at McFarty, straight into his eyes, and tell him: “The debt ceiling will be raised. The bills will continue to be paid. There’s no negotiating that’s going to be done to get this done. So take your stupid minion ass back to your other minions and explain it to them.”
Fay: I can't argue with you, I am not informed. And the text of the constitution seems to read, to me, as though you are simply correct. But, as I commented above, the NYTimes readings lead me to think that there is some more nuance. Is there really no constitutional scholar of good faith that has any qualms about any of what you wrote above?
Wishy-washy opinions vs. the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the United States?
I've been struck by these words about "convictions", written by a great French poet 165 years ago:
"There is a certain cowardice, or rather, a certain sloppiness among the good people.
Brigands alone are convinced— of what ?—that they must succeed. And so, they do succeed."
(My translation)
So relevant, Peter! Who is the author?
I too am curious as to when did the asking Congress to raise the debt limit occur if it's so clear or what subsequent legislation limits the 14th?
I believe HCR just did a podcast on this.
There are many who know the legal side far better than I, hopefully one will reply. As for the New York Times, I no longer have the trust in printed news that I used to have. When I was a young woman, you could trust what you read in the papers and saw on TV. If the reporter or TV anchor erred they recanted. Today some wealthy dictator tells the 'employee' what to say or write. They try to cover their liability by claiming to be 'fair' to both sides, even when one side is obviously spewing lies. As to the Constitution, I read and interpret the words exactly as they are written, but sometimes I have to consider the history of the time. I would never venture to "guess" what the Framers were thinking, to me, that is the depth of stupidity and ego.
Fay, HCR did a very good job in today's LFAA putting the 14th Constitutional Amendment & all subsections in their proper historical context which yields a "living" Constitution in 2023 battles. I loved 'Prosser on Torts' in Law School for the same reasons; we benefit greatly by 'Richardson on 19th Century Law'.
I'm only playing a Devil's Advocate here, but isn't what you've stated about longevity of a law and unquestioning observance of that law not "suddenly" giving legal standing exactly what the SCOTUS Gang of Six decided about Roe v Wade?
I'm now wondering if there can ever be such a thing as "settled law."
I think that your wondering is an interesting perspective. It was "settled law" (writ into the constitution) that Black slaves were to be considered 3/5 of a person for tabulating a State's population. That is a perspective of the time that changed over time to realize that particular slice was not right, ethically or morally and corrected by both amending the constitution as well as by creating case law that determined that Blacks were, in fact, people too. Plessy v. Ferguson said that race-separated schools that were "separate but equal" was constitutionally valid. Brown v. Board of Education overturned that decision by noting that "separate but equal" was not equal and that racial segregation in public schools was wrong.
I am sure there are others, this was the first that came to mind for me (although the Dred Scott decision out of the Taney court is another sterling example of a decision being overturned). To my knowledge, the Dobbs decision was the first decision of SCROTUS that took away a previously granted right rather than ruling that cases that ruled there were rights denied to certain classes of people were wrong.
Good example, Ally. The irritant for me is the present presumption that goes with declaring settled law or precedents or conventions to be inconvenient or not what the originators meant and thusly acting as though such never existed and boxing us in to prove the truthfulness of such before they will cede to any conditions or obligations that come and came, to this date, with such being in agreement. If you see what I meant. 'Twas a time when they had to write and get a majority vote in favor of a law to correct or absolve all of the obligations or settled law. Now, they need only to deny validity of what the majority may have agreed was settled, worthy, in the interest of the reputation and aspirations of this union, this democracy, this economy, this standing among men and nations, the integrity of all withstanding. If you see what I mean. The conundrum that now distinguishes disruption as ideology from progress toward goals as politics.
Agreed that this request is valid as well as needed
There’s all parts of the 14th Amendment the ‘Pubbies and SCOTUS are hellbent on ignoring.
Let’s see…
There’s the Due Process clause.
There’s the bit about those engaged in active rebellion against the US not being allowed to serve in Congress. Or be President or VP or any other elected official of the government of the US
There’s the full faith and credit clause.
There’s the part about apportionment and how everyone born here is a citizen (jus solis)
Pubbies! I love it 😍 It’s kind of like their obsession with the Bible. Just ignore all the parts you don’t like and focus on that obscure line from The Book of Armaments or some other nonsense
'Pubbies, Marla? Love it!
Marla, in other words, We The People have no will to enforce our own laws in the face of propagandized Tribalism
That's about the size of it.
We, the People have the will. But we need to vote out the minority that's standing in the way. Can't do much about SCOTUS at this point, though.
SCOTUS decided way back in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison that they were the final arbiters on the law and that they had the last say in what the Constitution actually means and allows. Need to fix that, somehow.
Especially with this corrupt Court, yes!
It seems clear and unambiguous to me; the US Constitution requires that the US gov’t. will pay its bills. Period, stop.
What seems just as clear, threats, just the threat, to prevent the US gov’t. from honoring its obligations undermine our “full faith and credit,” thereby undermine constitutional authority, and thus are treasonous. Period, stop.
None dare call it treason.
I do.
J’accuse!
So do i
Agreed!
Agreed!!!
If the 14th Amendment requires the government to pay its debts, it seems like a vote should not even be necessary.
Exactly so when did that first occur and why
I have been thinking a lot lately (don't snicker please) about the pressures put upon our way of life, the stresses that the pandemic has put our traditions, our national image(s) of ourselves, and so on. It seems to me that when a crisis occurs, emboldened forces rise to take over the stage by claiming to have the ability to lead the rest of us out of the mire. This usually involves taking much of the government prisoner, to bend existing ways to a single person's will. A democracy by definition relies on the voices of the people; a republic relies on the minds of the chosen representatives of those people. Many branches of this complicated form of government are poorly understood in their functions, their duties, and their limits. That leads to questions of what the responsibilities are, how are they enforced, and where is the oversight. You can fill in your own sentiments about this. My problem is whether an agency is doing what it is intended to do, or whether corruption has set in. At that point, the voices of the people are drowned out by rules and practices designed to protect the status of members of that agency, because they feel they are best suited for the job requirements. The truth is that agencies can be eliminated, staff can be replaced, and not much upheaval is noticed. Time and time again, an agency we rely on fails its mandate because it was corrupted by some adjustment in definition, (police in Uvalde who by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1989 ruled that they, the police, have no duty to protect and serve,) contrary to when the average citizen thinks. Does that imply that law enforcement can choose which issues to involve themselves in? The pandemic created stress on just about every institution in the entire world, and the fallout will in my mind not be recovered from for decades. A redesign of the ways our systems work to reflect what we learned about functionality (health care for instance) requires steady minds, preferably without an ego-driven mindset, a willingness to listen, to attempt to understand the other points of view, and hopefully for no direct personal gain. The world is always changing, nothing remains the same. If we hire our officeholders by electing them, to ably confront the issues associated with those changes, we had better be aware of qualifications and motive for candidacy. Should we allow the resources of our country, physical, financial, educational, social, and other societal elements, to be denied to a segment of our citizens? Who should decide which city or state residents be allowed potable water, decent health care, welfare for helpless folks, which children can have access to schools? Is there a limit to what the government should provide based on ethnicity or country of origin? Who decides that the federal minimum wage should remain at $7.25/hour, a rate established in 2009? How do we prepare for the future when a sizeable segment of out population wants to revert to past codes of conduct and government? How is it possible that we could default on our debts? Aren't protections in place to avoid that possibility? We think of the Supreme Court as a group of nine, who ultimately decide what the Constitution intended. But when a case is decided by a 5-4 decision, really only a single individual has prevailed. Think about that. We live in a society resting on myth, the City on the Hill myth, the Manifest Destiny myth, the American Exceptionalism myth, and so on; much of our mythical power arises from our geography, that is it inconvenient for us to be attacked. We claim to be a peace-loving nation who we think should be the example for the rest of the world. Why then, has this country not been in a war for only 21 years since 1776? I s that how we want to define our national identity, 21 years of peacetime in 239 years of existence? The Christian tradition that powers much of our identity is not peace-loving, God is not averse to war, read the histories. GW Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. (Denied by the WH.) Where is the imagination hiding that will be needed to escape the mistakes of our past and make room for all of us Americans?
Ed, discovering that our lives rest on a bunch of assumptions is scary. Discovering that much of the history we learned in school was biased and incomplete is wrenching. Wile E. Coyote panicked and fell when he discovers (several times, if my childhood memory serves) he is walking on thin air. That's what this moment feels like. We have collectively discovered our institutions are not what we thought they were. Some of us panic and dive back for the cliff, only to fall. Some realize we were always walking on air, and look around for ways to do/order things that better fit the newly perceived reality. Myths are not falsehoods, they are expressions of what we value and how we cope with the world. As such, they are foundational to our thinking and actions. The problem is, they need to change sometimes. Our challenge: do we adapt our thinking and actions to the world as we see it now, or do we panic and splat on the rocks?
Republicans vote for splat, then they can buy the detritus for pennies
So frighteningly true!
Ed. This is a beautiful essay. You are asking the right questions. I encourage them.
But just a small suggestion to help your admiring readers: consider breaking up the comment into several paragraphs for easier reading.
Again, hear my applause. But some folks when they see a block of type that big can't penetrate it.
Hope you write more.
Wow, thank you so much! I will do that, and any other suggestions welcome.
Good thoughts but one suggestion: The paragraph is your friend.
Agreed!
“Resting on myth...”is scarily in line with my own observation. Having lived most of our adult lives outside the USA, both my spouse and I have observed our country’s mentality to be over-whelming militaristic. It became increasingly difficult to defend international “interference” by our country.
If the Scotus won't agree that the 14th amendement renders the Treasury debt limit unconstitutional then a leaf should be taken out of FDR's playbook to show them that the people are the boss.
Could you explain for those of us who don’t have the knowledge of what was in FDR’s playbook.
Certainly, Vivian, with pleasure. FDR was facing a loaded, right-wing SCOTUS, as now, and was losing important parts of his New Deal ....as now....through their decisions. Big Social Security cases were coming up and FDR was afraid that they would be nixed too. So he introduced Judicial Procedures Reform Bill in 1937 and used he used his famous "fireside chats" for promotion. The bill would have allowed him to name a new judge for every current member of the Court aged over 70. This could have given him the edge. He was aware that the Bill was unlikely to pass but the threat was enough. The upcoming decisions went FDR's way.
Stuart You seem to be referring to the story about ‘the vote that saved nine.’ FDR, after an overwhelming 1936 re-election sought to target the Supreme Court, which had rejected various New Deal legislation. Among other things, he was concerned that the SC would reject his carefully crafted Social Security aLw [Justice Frankfurter surreptitiously helped craft this law, but that’s another story.]
In fact much of the New Deal legislation was badly written. At least one law (AAA?—my notes are upstairs) was rejected 9-0. But back to ‘the vote that saved nine.’ FDR’s effort to pack the SC failed—it was not popular and he had initiated it arrogantly without talking with senators, including key Senator Robinson.
‘The vote to save nine’ purportedly was by Justice Owen Roberts. In fact, as subsequent records reveal, this vote was initially made in Court discussions BEFORE FDR’s court packing initiative. In addition to public sources, I had an opportunity to discuss this with Owen Robert’s son in 1958.
Thanks Keith!
Excellent! I love this history lesson. Thanks Stuart!
Stuart!! Long time no hear from! How is France in your neck of the woods? Any protesting around you? R
Hi Marlene, St Cloud is quiet but the rest is on fire.
Heather, I bet there’s not one person in Congress who knows the information you gave us. There are so many lawmakers yet these facts elude them. Today, my Congressman, Mark DeSaulnier, revealed “Plan B” that the Dems will propose if the debt ceiling debacle isn’t agreed upon. DeSaulnier and others referred to a “discharge petition”. All of the Dems will sign this petition but they need to convince 5 Republicans to go along with it. The petition forces the Republicans to make a debt limit vote. This can be dicey but it’s a bold move by the otherwise polite Dems. The issue is finding 5 Repubs who will be brave and go against the norm, probably moderate Repubs. If there’s any left, that is.
Morning, Marlene! Heather addressed the discharge petition in her Tuesday chat on FB:
https://fb.watch/khScpOgavC/
Thank you for the reminder Lynell, I always save her fb chats for later
Morning, Lynell. I did see it but I wanted to give my Congressman a shout-out and put him on everyone’s radar. ☺️
Oops, my bad! He's on my radar now!!
😺👍🏼
A story on NPR' today talked about going to the 10 or so Rs whose districts voted for Biden as well as those Rs who won very close elections in order to try and find those "willing" Congress people.
Was the story referencing polls by any chance, Kathleen?
No, it was the commentator's opinion, but he was their head political reporter. (Can't recall his name at the moment. ) i don't know if a poll would have been helpful.
I doubt it. NPR has been somewhat leaning right, unfortunately.
Thank you for this enlightening history. Seems clear to me. Rest well, Professor.
Thank you Heather for putting the debt in historical perspective. Unfortunate we have Radicals in our government bent on destroying our country by not honoring our financial obligations.
Radicals? Nay! They are neofascists!
True that.
Radicals who write BIG FAT IOU's with no intention of following up.....
Research is definitely her forte, I can completely relate, even if it doesn't completely sink in it at 0300 in the morning when I'm in zombie mode.
Newt started this BS and Democrats should end it.
Republicans - agents of chaos, propagators of 24 karat BULLCRAP.
I think that is exactly what Heather mentioned in her Tuesday Chat on FB. She also wanted to give credit to George HW Bush for bringing down the debt which caused Newt to engineer his defeat in the next election.
https://fb.watch/khScpOgavC/
Ah! So how did he start it? Just popular movement? Explain please
How Republicans weaponized the debt ceiling
As Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich never followed through with his threat of government default, but he laid the groundwork for the hostage-style tactics surrounding the debt ceiling that Republicans are using now. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna53279173#
Suggest watching HCR's video for more (link is in Lynell's post).
"...The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned..."
The meaning is very simple and very clear. We will always repay our debts.
The phrase "The full faith and credit of the United States" is heavy with meaning. Our monetary system is based on faith. People around the world believe that our money will hold its value through time. It won't just evaporate tomorrow. History offers many examples of monetary systems that suddenly ceased to have any value.
Our "fiat" system of money offers many advantages over monetary systems backed by gold, for example. Because we are a monetarily sovereign nation, we can create money when necessary to pay our debts. The House could refuse to issue new debt by suspending the practice of "deficit spending", relying entirely on revenue for spending. But that's not the issue with the debt ceiling, which refers to money already spent.
Congress routinely commits to spending beyond revenue receipts, which we refer to as "deficit spending". Treasury issues bonds and various instruments as a way to finance that deficit spending. The Federal Reserve buys and sells those bonds on the Open Market.
The viability of our system depends on us making good on our promise to redeem those Treasury instruments on demand. If we fail to return a bond-holder's money, it means we are defaulting on our debt. It would represent our breaking our iron-clad promise to ALWAYS repay our debts. It would break the faith. We need to keep the faith: "the full faith and credit of the United States".
What becomes an individual who does not pay his debts should become a congress that does not pay its debts.
Perhaps the “Pubbies” are on to something. If they refuse to pay the debts I guess my interpretation is that not paying my taxes is good to go too. It seems to fit the new conservatism. Heck, let’s all go out to the drive away for supper tonight.
The "drive away"? Is that a regional term? Never heard it before.
The term “drive away” comes from people who bought the gasoline and drove away without paying. Nowadays prepay has ended that era. I thought it appropriate for a legislature that thinks it can “drive away.” In Missoula students often ate at the Stocks and made a run to avoid paying. A couple of waitresses paid the bills for the thieving students. When I was a student we caught fish and harvested deer and elk and ducks and geese and worked our butts off, eating what we caught or going without. No matter what we paid our bills. I despise this group who says it won’t pay the bills.
Ah, I see now what you were referring to. I'm trying to think of the term we used for restaurant patrons who didn't pay or left bad checks. At any rate, the tabs and bounced check got "posted" on the wall behind the register, so no repeats. Long time ago. Familiar with the lifestyle you describe. A lot of sharing. For us, it was just life. I still forage.
Today we're wondering: do we, as citizens of the US, have legal standing to sue the House "Freedoom" Caucus for threatening to imperil our personal wealth, such as it is, and for threatening to jeopardize our economic well-being?
America needs more discretionary spending, not less. Give America Biden's second infrastructure bill. Watch our economy grow and our national debt decrease. There is nothing Republicans fear more than a successful America.
That last sentence has become truer than true. They “trumpet” that with every breath…Putin is hanging on for the triumphant return of his lapdog.
Well said, ZB. I'd add "for all Americans" to the end of your sentence, although it stands well on its own.
So, as usual, the government for the people, by the people, etc, etc comes down,to a pretty shaky proposition. Our president chosen every 4 years not by the 150 million people that voted for or against them but by a handful of them - the outdated and ill understood Electoral College . And now the economic balance of the entire world is being decided by the same number of people.
What could possibly go wrong?
(I should have moved to Canada when I was dodging the Vietnam War. They had Gordon Lightfoot 【RIP】)
Canada has its own set of problems. I wasn't a draft dodger (female exception) but like many others of the era, I thought they had the social equity thing worked out. Then I learned the truth, especially regarding the treatment of indigenous people. And stayed home to become an activist. I will not live long enough to know if my contribution made a difference or not. At the time (and for some time after, until recently) I felt we had made a difference. And maybe we did. If we can get through the mess we are in right now, I think things will come together.
If You Could Read My Mind https://g.co/kgs/3rbyaR
Thank you Heather.
I have been researching the 14th Amendment. It is clear that the GOP are infringing on this Ammendment. Yet we are living in times where rules have become meaningless.
The GOP have dug their heels in and any backtracking would be perceived as weakness. Weakness for the sake of the Nation will be our downfall.
I don't see the inflection point when they will understand that this isn't merely a talking point.
Be safe. Be well.
Just read through it (the 14th Amendment). Previously I was mostly familiar with and interested in the equal treatment under the law parts. An amazing amendment.
Now Biden should quote this amendment in defense of not using the debt ceiling as legislational (a made up word :-) ) leverage.
Charles Dickens would've written " A Tale of Two Parties " if he was alive.
When did the need for vote by congress occur and why?
WWI under Wilson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_debt_ceiling#:~:text=In%201917%2C%20during%20World%20War,under%20the%20statutory%20debt%20ceiling.
What a fabulously told history, Dr. Richardson! Without explicit reference to the present, you have set the current crisis in dramatic relief so that readers can see it for what it is: a struggle of average citizens against the privileged or crazed few who have stacked the political cards in their favor. May the Fourteenth Amendment prevail against those who would destroy democracy to win.
Great Letter!
End of terms bring exhaustion, so thank you for going the extra mile while under that pressure. Now, take a break and rest well.