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

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

11. It says "debt authorized by law"

Reply to BlueStreak (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:35 AM

Dec 2012

There is currently on the books a law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, under which the federal government is not authorized to incur debt above a specified amount. I don't see how the Fourteenth Amendment can be read as saying that debt incurred in direct violation of such a statute is nevertheless "debt authorized by law".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

House Democrat: If Republicans Hold Debt Ceiling Hostage, Invoke 14th Amendment To Raise It [View all] Report1212 Dec 2012 OP

we don't negotiate with terrorists mcctatas Dec 2012 #1

nt Report1212 Dec 2012 #4

A minor quibble with their terminology BlueStreak Dec 2012 #2

I don't follow your argument Shrek Dec 2012 #3

The 14th amendment says nothing about "existing debt" BlueStreak Dec 2012 #5

It says "debt authorized by law" Jim Lane Dec 2012 #11

All the spending that created the debt is authorized by law BlueStreak Dec 2012 #15

No EC Dec 2012 #9

Tell me where it says that. BlueStreak Dec 2012 #16

I saw this question on a blog somewhere and it made me stop and think: Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #6

Honestly, we shouldn't have one Report1212 Dec 2012 #7

I had actually never even heard of it until last year Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #8

It hasn't "passed unremarked year after year." Jim Lane Dec 2012 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #13

There's a distinct difference between casting a purely symbolic vote against something Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #18

i thought my post made that clear. Jim Lane Dec 2012 #19

I just don't understand why President Obama has taken the 14th off the table. bluestate10 Dec 2012 #10

I read an explanation somewhere of why that wouldn't work -- sorry, pnwmom Dec 2012 #14

It would be a multi-stage thing. BlueStreak Dec 2012 #17