In Washington, the contest between House of Representatives and President Barack Obama over increasing the federal debt ceiling is approaching a July 22 deadline. But it may be that there is no need of any action at all; that no expenditures need be cut and no revenues need be enhanced.

Some are arguing that federal debt ceiling laws are unconstitutional, and that the executive can act without them to safeguard the nation’s credit.They cite the fourth section of the Reconstruction-Era 14th Amendment, the pertinent portions of which are boldfaced:

Section 4
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.

Do you think this section of the 14th Amendment applies to the current battle over the debt ceiling?



The wealthiest people in the US can't pay a larger percentage of taxes on their wealth? Doesn't seem fair to me. Obama may have the law behind him, but he has to do something to create a compromise or we're going to end up dirt poor. Even those top guys with all the money will lose if the US can't pay its debt and put people to work here in the states.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <blockquote> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <object> <param> <embed> <p> <small> <hr> <br> <u> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5>
  • You can use Markdown syntax to format and style the text. Also see Markdown Extra for tables, footnotes, and more.

More information about formatting options