Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Deminpenn

(17,621 posts)

6. Not a lawyer, but unsure you're right

Reply to onenote (Reply #2)

Mon May 8, 2023, 04:19 PM

May 2023

To me, this reads in two parts. 1 any debt issued by the US government is valid and therefore must be paid. Period.

Part 2 specifically addresses potential complications caused by the Civil War.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

14th Amendment emerges as last-ditch fix to ward off default [View all] Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2023 OP

It's a constitutional crisis worth triggering IMO Fiendish Thingy May 2023 #1

If the Court had to vote on the merits, they'd probably rule 9-0 against the use of the 14th. onenote May 2023 #2

But wouldn't a default effectively render US bonds "invalid"? Fiendish Thingy May 2023 #4

I could read it a bit differently. Igel May 2023 #10

So bonds must be paid, and a budget bill is a law authorizing expenditures Fiendish Thingy May 2023 #11

Not as a legal concept. Again, think about common types of debt onenote May 2023 #12

You're making the word "valid" do a lot of heavy lifting here. Fiendish Thingy May 2023 #13

Really? What do you think the plain meaning of validity is? onenote May 2023 #14

Defaulting would cause the markets to consider US bonds invalid, worthless Fiendish Thingy May 2023 #15

What happens when you default on your credit card? onenote May 2023 #17

If you don't pay your credit card, it gets cancelled Fiendish Thingy May 2023 #19

Another point to consider Fiendish Thingy May 2023 #21

Not a lawyer, but unsure you're right Deminpenn May 2023 #6

How can they rule against what's in the Constitution? brush May 2023 #9

Agreed! DemocraticPatriot May 2023 #25

The question is this...would SCOTUS say we've set a precedent Buckeyeblue May 2023 #3

Well, it was supposed to be the Courts who "set precedents", not congress--- DemocraticPatriot May 2023 #26

Since 1960 Emile May 2023 #5

Mint the coin and slap McCarthy's face on it Arazi May 2023 #7

Mint a bunch of high value coins IbogaProject May 2023 #8

The President has more troops than the Supreme Court..... DemocraticPatriot May 2023 #16

That would be a dangerous precedent Silent3 May 2023 #18

It is indeed dangerous, but a necessary constitutional crisis that should be triggered Fiendish Thingy May 2023 #20

Some very-red states, and red counties in blue states, are already taking the opinion that DemocraticPatriot May 2023 #24

Inapt analogy onenote May 2023 #22

I applied that quote to the wrong case. I was not Dred Scot, it was Lincoln's suspension DemocraticPatriot May 2023 #23