Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul V. who wrote (109182)	7/29/2011 11:56:43 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

I don't care much for arguments from authority, esp. from anonomous authorities like these 3 unnamed attorneys. There simply isn't anything in the 14th amendment that even vaguely suggests that the president can ignore the debt limit. Its not even like Roe vs. Wade, where the constitution itself didn't support the decision, but previous court decisions, and some legal scholarship over a period of years or decades, lined up behind the idea. It would be a stretch, to even say the 14th amendment required on time debt payment, but assuming the court would say it did, that could easily be handled by a small fraction of federal revenue. Just think if President Obama had such powers along with future Presidents during such conflicts. Yes if the court actually declared debt limits unconstitutional (either directly, or in effect by the way it ruled) then it would be a shift of power to the presidency. There would be a call of impeachment and the additional conflict of the action. A call yes, but with the Democrats in control of the Senate it would go nowhere.