exigency

 

Section 4, 14th amendment to the Constitution 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

That is section four of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. (1868). This amendment is mostly noted for granting citizenship, due process of law and equal protection under the law to anyone born or naturalized in America. But today I've heard where the Biden administration may attempt to use this amendment to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally without congress. They are citing section four as the authority to do so. It isn't the first time that has been considered, Bill Clinton once said in an interview he would have done that and let the court decide the legality! 

 Now I'm certainly no legal beagle, but I can read. No where in that amendment does it say the President can raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval. The first sentence in section four seems perfectly clear to me. The public debt, authorized by law, is valid and shall not be questioned. In other words, debt incurred by congress (authorized by law) is valid and shall be paid without question. Congress is the only body that has the power to make law! Congress, by the way, is the people, you and I in this scenario. Stands to reason if debt was authorized by law, incurred by the people, Congress did that. Not too hard to understand in my opinion. The second sentence in section four clearly says what debts will not be paid. If the debt was incurred without the consent of Congress, it shall not be paid. The United States isn't paying for any monies you borrowed to finance a rebellion, insurrection, or loss of "property." That's what it says. It doesn't say the President has any authority to incur debt. 

 Now it does say the payment of pensions and bounties for service in suppressing insurrection or rebellion are valid and shall not be questioned. Payments to citizens of the United States, not those that rebelled against it! Remember this was written in 1868 just three years after the war of rebellion. The Congress authorized those debts. It is the job of Congress to pay them and that is why the Congress prepares the budget. The Congress is in control of the purse strings, not the executive branch. It is the legislative branch that makes those decisions! Yes, the executive branch may veto that budget, but that is the extent of the power granted by the constitution to the president. 

 It's true that the president can issue an executive order. That is to be used as a last resort in a time of emergency. Does it apply if the president creates the emergency? That's what this is if Biden refuses to compromise on the budget and forces the country into default. The emergency is the default, and the cause is his refusal to compromise. Other Presidents have certainly issued executive orders and most of them were questionable. I wouldn't deny that, but it is no excuse, no reason to do so again. That's like saying, everyone is doing it. Still doesn't make it right. 

This notion that the 14th amendment somehow grants the president to just spend money any way he wants to something only a lawyer would justify. It is based not in what was written but in what it could mean, maybe, might have been what they were thinking. It says plainly enough, the debts shall not be questioned, they are valid debts, incurred by congress. That's all it says. It doesn't say how they are to be paid, just that they are valid. The second sentence clearly says what "debts" will not be paid. 

The Congress is the Chief Financial Officer of the United States. The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States. As in any corporation the CFO presents the facts and figures to the CEO for his/her input and consideration. The CEO then adds or subtracts what they like. The prudent CEO takes the recommendations and advice of the CFO in making his/her decisions because, well, that's what they hired them to do, it's their job! The CEO may not be happy with that, but they don't bankrupt the corporation because they don't like the facts. That seems to be what is happening with some of these big banks lately. It cost the FDIC 22 billion dollars. How will that be repaid? Well, it's insurance money right, they have the money to pay that out, they expect it, they plan for it. It never gets paid back. Uh huh, the insurance company just pays it out without any thought on recouping their loss. 

 It is Biden that is the current Chief Executive Officer of the United States regardless of any like or dislike you have for him. It's his job at this time. He has to do what is best for the company. If the Chief Financial Officer is telling him that the budget needs to be cut in order to maintain the stability of the corporation, he is obligated to listen impartially and make the best choice. It's just business, nothing personal. The CEO of Budweiser would have been wise to listen as well! Make stupid choices you get stupid results. Does the CEO get to take over the company by creating an emergency? Is that how it works? Is that in the constitution. In fact, the word emergency doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. In Article One, section 8, line two it does say this: "congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States" It doesn't say the President can. President Taft (Republican) put it this way: “that the President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and necessary to its exercise.” That statement was in direct contrast to what Roosevelt (Democrat) said: “insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by the Congress under its constitutional powers.” He was saying the president can do as he pleases unless the constitution or other law specifically say he cannot. In other words, he felt he was like the King and could as he pleased unless it was written down that he couldn't. Taft had the opposite view, if it doesn't say I can, I can't. That's what the legislative branch is for. 

98-505 (congress.gov)  for reference