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
 

DemocraticPatriot

(5,410 posts)
23. I applied that quote to the wrong case. I was not Dred Scot, it was Lincoln's suspension
Tue May 9, 2023, 10:46 PM
May 2023

of the right of habeus corpus during the early years of the rebellion that generated that line. Lincoln's suspension of that right helped to prevent the secession of the state of Maryland from the union-- whose pro-southern legislature had been headed in that direction, before Lincoln had many of the rebellious legislators arrested and held without charges for a time, thus preventing any such pro-secession vote. Of course the secession of Maryland would have been disastrous to the union cause, leaving DC completely surrounded by rebel territory.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, the same justice who wrote the Dred Scot decision, issued an order for Lincoln to release all such persons held without charges, i.e. "legally" overturning Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus. President Lincoln ignored the decision.

It was then that some contemporary observed, 'Lincoln commands more troops than the Supreme Court'.

Sorry, when I said "Dred Scot" that was just a complete brain-fart, LOL. I know my history, but sometimes when the keyboard fingers get clacking, one might occasionally make an error...

My reference to "troops" in the current instance was a tad facetious-- but it remains true that the Supreme Court commands no troops while the President does. The Supreme Court has no powerful means of enforcing its decisions, except for the voluntary compliance of the rest of us.

Congress may be 'given the power to borrow money' but it is the US Treasury who pays the bills,
and the Treasury department serves under the orders of the executive, President Biden...

The Congress commands no troops, either....

In the extraordinary circumstances that the congress is unable to to raise the debt limit, I think that President Biden would be entirely justified, in order to protect the economy of the United States as well as the world, to declare that the "debt limit" law passed by congress during World War I, was in fact unconstitutional, and that the Treasury Department, under his command, will continue to pay the debts incurred by the United States, as mandated by the 14th amendment to the Constituion.

Of course there would be court challenges, but those would drag on for years. In the meantime, the Congress, under massive public pressure, would likely come through on their obligations.

If not, there is always that $Trillion dollar coin option.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»14th Amendment emerges as...»Reply #23