I don't have strong feelings about the 14th amendment solution, but aren't all debts of the US "authorized by law"? Doesn't the federal government, at least in theory, need legal authority to incur any debts?
I was going to say something similar. As I understand it, the argument is that the debt is authorized by the laws Congress passed directing the executive to spend certain amounts of money on certain things. Ellipsis or no, it seems like a pretty strong argument.
But the laws don't authorize the issuance of the debt -- they say to spend but they don't say how to obtain the funds. You could similarly argue that the executive could print money to pay those amounts, or that it could levy additional taxes to pay those amounts, because the executive has been directed to spend and must lay its hands on the money somehow.
Josh, I don't understand any of this in depth, but are the alternative money-raising options you cite really options? Does the executive have the ability under existing statutes to simply print money to pay the obligations Congress has enacted? I'm guessing the answer is no, because if it were yes then people wouldn't be digging through the code for obscure provisions that allow the minting of platinum coins (which the Supreme Court would pretty clearly hold do not apply here). And I'm pretty sure the President can't simply levy taxes without authorization from Congress. If all that is right, then it seems to me there's a pretty strong argument for reading the spending laws enacted by Congress back in December as authorization to incur additional debt.
Hmm, that's an interesting point. Biden says he will push the 14th amendment after this current crisis because invoking it will involve legal challenges. It might wash out that if congress has restricted debt as a way to fulfill obligations, then the executive has the implicit right to print more money or raise taxes. That would have the effect of congress quickly removing any future debt ceiling and explicitly make debt the only implicit way for the executive to fulfill the spending obligations.
None of this is a solution to the existing situation, but it can provide a way forward in the future (assuming the courts buy the argument).
So there is no Chesterton's Fence-type argument whatsoever for the debt ceiling to exist? Has it ever led to any reflection about government size/spending, or is it merely an occasion for the exercise of cleverness such as minting a big coin* or further mining the word salad of the 14th amendment? If the latter, conservatives should indeed be quite prepared to give up on it. There is no sense in which fakery serves the nation's interests; better to forget whatever the principle was, than to preserve it only to mock it, if it had any validity.
*Rather poignant that Google chooses to illustrate the dimensions of this shiny totem by invoking seven Saturn V rockets.
I don't have strong feelings about the 14th amendment solution, but aren't all debts of the US "authorized by law"? Doesn't the federal government, at least in theory, need legal authority to incur any debts?
I was going to say something similar. As I understand it, the argument is that the debt is authorized by the laws Congress passed directing the executive to spend certain amounts of money on certain things. Ellipsis or no, it seems like a pretty strong argument.
But the laws don't authorize the issuance of the debt -- they say to spend but they don't say how to obtain the funds. You could similarly argue that the executive could print money to pay those amounts, or that it could levy additional taxes to pay those amounts, because the executive has been directed to spend and must lay its hands on the money somehow.
Josh, I don't understand any of this in depth, but are the alternative money-raising options you cite really options? Does the executive have the ability under existing statutes to simply print money to pay the obligations Congress has enacted? I'm guessing the answer is no, because if it were yes then people wouldn't be digging through the code for obscure provisions that allow the minting of platinum coins (which the Supreme Court would pretty clearly hold do not apply here). And I'm pretty sure the President can't simply levy taxes without authorization from Congress. If all that is right, then it seems to me there's a pretty strong argument for reading the spending laws enacted by Congress back in December as authorization to incur additional debt.
Hmm, that's an interesting point. Biden says he will push the 14th amendment after this current crisis because invoking it will involve legal challenges. It might wash out that if congress has restricted debt as a way to fulfill obligations, then the executive has the implicit right to print more money or raise taxes. That would have the effect of congress quickly removing any future debt ceiling and explicitly make debt the only implicit way for the executive to fulfill the spending obligations.
None of this is a solution to the existing situation, but it can provide a way forward in the future (assuming the courts buy the argument).
I mean spending obligations beyond the income that congress has already authorized.
So there is no Chesterton's Fence-type argument whatsoever for the debt ceiling to exist? Has it ever led to any reflection about government size/spending, or is it merely an occasion for the exercise of cleverness such as minting a big coin* or further mining the word salad of the 14th amendment? If the latter, conservatives should indeed be quite prepared to give up on it. There is no sense in which fakery serves the nation's interests; better to forget whatever the principle was, than to preserve it only to mock it, if it had any validity.
*Rather poignant that Google chooses to illustrate the dimensions of this shiny totem by invoking seven Saturn V rockets.