# Is the debt ceiling unconstitutional.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 29, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321 "2011-06-29T22:13:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/1 "2011-06-29T22:13:12Z")
Some Democratic Senators are saying that the debt ceiling may be unconstitutional.
> **[Dems Eye Novel Solution To Debt Ceiling Crisis](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442?ref=fb&src=sp)**
>
> Dems Eye Novel Solution To Debt Ceiling Crisis
> [@](#):
>
> Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.
>
> “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned,” reads the 14th Amendment.
It could be argued that if this is valid, it’s only valid in that you can’t have a ceiling on paying off already incurred debt. It wouldn’t stop you from having a ceiling on how much new debt you could incur (other than what is incurred through interest).
On the other hand you could argue that if Congress has authorized spending, then it has implicitly **authorized** a debt of whatever amount that spending exceeds revenue, and the amendment does address debt that has been **authorized** by law, and therefore, you can’t place a ceiling on spending.
What say you?
---
### Author:  [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/2 "2011-06-30T02:15:53Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Up until World War I, the U.S. government needed approval from Congress every time it wanted to borrow money from the public. Congress would determine the number of [securities](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/security.asp) that could be issued, their [maturity date](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/maturitydate.asp) and the interest that would be payed on these securities.
>
> With the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, however, the U.S. Treasury was given a debt limit, or a ceiling of how much it could borrow from the public without seeking Congress’ consent. The Treasury was also given the discretion to decide maturity dates, interest rate levels and the type of instruments that would be offered. The total amount of money that can be borrowed by the government without further authorization by Congress is known as the _total public debt subject to limit_. Any amount above this level has to receive additional approval from the legislative branch.
> **[U.S. National Debt and Government Bonds: What You Need to Know](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/04/011404.asp)**
>
> When a government spends more than it brings in as tax revenue, it issues debt in the form of government bonds to raise more. Learn how national debt works.
Congress could simply repeal that part of the 1917 Second Liberty Bond Act.
---
### Author:  [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/3 "2011-06-30T02:32:02Z")
> [@Duckster](#):
>
> Congress could simply repeal that part of the 1917 Second Liberty Bond Act.
That would certainly not be a simple thing to do.
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/4 "2011-06-30T03:10:54Z")
If the context in the cited article is correct, then it does sound unconstitutional. Not that strict adherence to the Constitution is all that important to politicans. This would only apply to debts already incurred. It seems like congress would still have to approve any new loans.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/5 "2011-06-30T03:41:59Z")
> [@TriPolar](#):
>
> If the context in the cited article is correct, then it does sound unconstitutional. Not that strict adherence to the Constitution is all that important to politicans. This would only apply to debts already incurred. It seems like congress would still have to approve any new loans.
Well, the point is payments on things like Medicare would not stop because the debt is already incurred. Congress does not vote on every bill submitted to Medicare. They system is there, it has debts it needs to meet.
---
### Author:  [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/6 "2011-06-30T05:12:10Z")
I find it interesting they would take this position on the debt ceiling, especially since [they all voted against raising it in 2006](http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/democrats_suddenly_regret_voti.html). It’s worth noting that the Republicans did exactly the same thing in 2010, but they’re not claiming that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional so it’s not exactly the same thing. No, this time it’s like the “nuclear option” in that the Democrats, recognizing that they can’t simply push their wishes through the Congress without strings attached, try to back-door it by claiming something they never believed before, will never claim again, and wouldn’t dare follow through on because it will hurt them later if they do.
What I wouldn’t give for some good old ethical and intellectual consistency from politicians. Just one time. I know, I know. And maybe one day I’ll win the Powerball and get a pony for my birthday, too.
---
### Author:  [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/7 "2011-06-30T06:30:22Z")
“Strings attached,” eh? I take it you do NOT agree with the stance of many liberal commentators that the Republicans are basically holding the American/global economy hostage with this entire debt ceiling debate?
Though frankly, I haven’t read a lot that convinces me that having the ceiling in the first place is a good thing. Who knows; maybe some will vote to remove it if it just means a series of hostage crises in the future.
---
### Author:  [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/8 "2011-06-30T12:20:59Z")
> [@Leaper](#):
>
> “Strings attached,” eh? I take it you do NOT agree with the stance of many liberal commentators that the Republicans are basically holding the American/global economy hostage with this entire debt ceiling debate?
>
> Though frankly, I haven’t read a lot that convinces me that having the ceiling in the first place is a good thing. Who knows; maybe some will vote to remove it if it just means a series of hostage crises in the future.
Of course the Republicans are. The Democrats, as has been demonstrated previously, would do exactly the same thing given the opportunity. Therefore, as it always is with politics in the United States, it comes down to whose ox is being gored. Of course liberal pundits are going to use phrases like “holding the economy hostage” because that’s a negative, while the conservative press will claim that the Republicans are “holding the line on taxes” so “you can keep more of your own money”. Neither are wrong, and neither are right, so there’s no point in bring polemicists into the discussion.
The Congress would love to eliminate the debt ceiling, by the way. These votes to raise it simply remind the people very starkly how bad our economic situation is becoming. But imagine how much debt we’d be in without forcing the Congress to go through this periodically, giving them a chance to slip by without the average person noticing.
---
### Author:  [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/9 "2011-06-30T13:17:04Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#):
>
> Of course the Republicans are. The Democrats, as has been demonstrated previously, would do exactly the same thing given the opportunity. Therefore, as it always is with politics in the United States, it comes down to whose ox is being gored. Of course liberal pundits are going to use phrases like “holding the economy hostage” because that’s a negative, while the conservative press will claim that the Republicans are “holding the line on taxes” so “you can keep more of your own money”. Neither are wrong, and neither are right, so there’s no point in bring polemicists into the discussion.
The minority party can vote against the debt ceiling increase (as in 2006, 2010) because they know that the majority party will pass it. Has either party previously attached any conditions to the debt ceiling vote? I’m guessing not, but willing to be educated.
The debt ceiling is not the appropriate venue for budget discussions - the Congress sets the revenue/spending amounts in the budget process (to use the word process very loosely). Fix it there without holding the economy hostage (talk about uncertainty).
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/10 "2011-06-30T13:33:48Z")
> [@davidm](#):
>
> On the other hand you could argue that if Congress has authorized spending, then it has implicitly **authorized** a debt of whatever amount that spending exceeds revenue, and the amendment does address debt that has been **authorized** by law, and therefore, you can’t place a ceiling on spending.
You could also argue that this authorization of spending is implicitly only valid if the funds are there or the debt ceiling is raised.
It’s a very good question, though. Does a bill from Congress authorizing spending on something mean that the money MUST be spend, all other consequences be damned?
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/11 "2011-06-30T13:41:25Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> You could also argue that this authorization of spending is implicitly only valid if the funds are there or the debt ceiling is raised.
>
> It’s a very good question, though. Does a bill from Congress authorizing spending on something mean that the money MUST be spend, all other consequences be damned?
The short answer is yes, since 1974.
[The history of appropriations impoundment and its sad end is described here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment)
---
### Author:  [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/12 "2011-06-30T17:07:54Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#):
>
> The short answer is yes, since 1974.
>
> [The history of appropriations impoundment and its sad end is described here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment)
That’s in regard to the President’s power to spend or not spend authorized funds. The question at hand is whether Congress can constitutionally use a “debt ceiling” to stop spending that they (or their predecessors) have authorized.
I would argue that they’re two different issues.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/13 "2011-06-30T17:11:23Z")
I was answering the question about whether appropriated funds must be spent. Since 1974, this has been the case, as Congress has never considered a request for rescission, AFAIK.
---
### Author:  [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/14 "2011-06-30T17:21:14Z")
> [@davidm](#):
>
> On the other hand you could argue that if Congress has authorized spending, then it has implicitly **authorized** a debt of whatever amount that spending exceeds revenue, and the amendment does address debt that has been **authorized** by law, and therefore, you can’t place a ceiling on spending.
>
> What say you?
This seems like the more logical argument to me. Passing the budget authorizes the spending and debt as per that budget. Having to enact a debt ceiling apart from the budget gives parties two swings at a pitch that’s already been hit.
---
### Author:  [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/15 "2011-06-30T19:28:44Z")
> [@davidm](#):
>
> Some Democratic Senators are saying that the debt ceiling may be unconstitutional.
> [14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=266006,b=facebook)
>
> It could be argued that if this is valid, it’s only valid in that you can’t have a ceiling on paying off already incurred debt. It wouldn’t stop you from having a ceiling on how much new debt you could incur (other than what is incurred through interest).
>
> On the other hand you could argue that if Congress has authorized spending, then it has implicitly **authorized** a debt of whatever amount that spending exceeds revenue, and the amendment does address debt that has been **authorized** by law, and therefore, you can’t place a ceiling on spending.
>
> What say you?
> [@](#):
>
> “This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default,”
I suppose the provision could be read to mean defaulting is equivalent to questioning the public debt of the United States. The provision can equally be construed as not precluding default since default is not the equivalent to questioning the public debt of the United States.
The case cited in the article,_Perry v. U.S_, is poorly conveyed as to its meaning in the article.
Personally, I am not sure what the correct answer is on this topic, since there is so little caselaw on the subject matter, and those cases on this topic do not provide a definitive answer to the issue.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/16 "2011-06-30T19:42:28Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#):
>
> This seems like the more logical argument to me. Passing the budget authorizes the spending and debt as per that budget. Having to enact a debt ceiling apart from the budget gives parties two swings at a pitch that’s already been hit.
No. When Congress passes a budget resolution, which is a comprehensive summary of all receipts and expenditures, it does not go to the President and it is not law. (The fact that Congress hasn’t passed a budget resolution in a couple years is irrelevant: even if they had, it is not law.)
The appropriations bills passed into law each year are an exercise of the Article I, Section 9 powers of Congress, and are clearly not an exercise of the oversight of the Art I, Sec 8 and 14th Amendment powers to borrow money on behalf of the United States. The power to issue debt is clearly not the same as the power to spend, as each power originates in different parts of the Constitution.
Also, it is clear that specific law trumps non-specific law. One cannot read a non-specific law as controlling law that is specific: since there is specific law dictating the amount of debt that the US may issue, one cannot look at an appropriations bill and infer that the debt limit has been altered.
---
### Author:  [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/17 "2011-06-30T20:59:34Z")
> [@Folacin](#):
>
> The minority party can vote against the debt ceiling increase (as in 2006, 2010) because they know that the majority party will pass it. Has either party previously attached any conditions to the debt ceiling vote? I’m guessing not, but willing to be educated.
>
> The debt ceiling is not the appropriate venue for budget discussions - the Congress sets the revenue/spending amounts in the budget process (to use the word process very loosely). Fix it there without holding the economy hostage (talk about uncertainty).
I agree. I don’t care if all the Democrats in the House vote against it the same way I don’t care if all the Republicans vote against in in the Senate. It’s the job of the controlling party in each house to get it done and I expect the gamesmanship from the minority party. That said, I would much prefer a “clean” bill and no bullshit cloture problems in the Senate. Raise the limit and then figure out budgetary policy.
---
### Author:  [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/18 "2011-06-30T21:17:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> No. When Congress passes a budget resolution, which is a comprehensive summary of all receipts and expenditures, it does not go to the President and it is not law. (The fact that Congress hasn’t passed a budget resolution in a couple years is irrelevant: even if they had, it is not law.)
>
> The appropriations bills passed into law each year are an exercise of the Article I, Section 9 powers of Congress, and are clearly not an exercise of the oversight of the Art I, Sec 8 and 14th Amendment powers to borrow money on behalf of the United States. The power to issue debt is clearly not the same as the power to spend, as each power originates in different parts of the Constitution.
No, I don’t think you’re correct. Remember way back a couple of months ago in April when the Congress and the Prez signed the budget into law? Here’s a link
[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-15/politics/obama.signs.budget\_1\_obama-signs-government-shutdown-budget-agreement?\_s=PM:POLITICS](http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-15/politics/obama.signs.budget_1_obama-signs-government-shutdown-budget-agreement?_s=PM:POLITICS)
(my apologies if the link doesn’t work. My computer is acting wonky. Do a google search for “Obama 2011 budget agreement”
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/19 "2011-06-30T21:31:49Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#):
>
> No, I don’t think you’re correct. Remember way back a couple of months ago in April when the Congress and the Prez signed the budget into law? Here’s a link
That was a large appropriations bill. It was not a budget resolution, which is a specific legislative product that guides budgetary decisions for appropriations, entitlements, and taxes. Congress hasn’t passed a budget resolution in two years, but it is required to pass appropriations bills every year.
But again: appropriations laws deal with only one kind of spending (which is about 30% of all government spending) and have nothing to do with taxes or determining the overall budget posture of the government.
---
### Author:  [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321/20 "2011-06-30T21:50:36Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#):
>
> But imagine how much debt we’d be in without forcing the Congress to go through this periodically, giving them a chance to slip by without the average person noticing.
Considering how many times it’s already been done, and how this is the first time most people even noticed this thing existed, I’d say it’s already failed at that purpose.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/587321.md?page=2)