I think the idea is that some creditor against whom the US defaulted would sue to enforce the debt, and raise an argument that the failure to pay was somehow unconstitutional (not sure how). Under this theory, the courts, up through the Supremes, would accept this argument and rule that the government acted unconstitutionally in not paying that debt and would order it to pay.
Good Lord, please try to get a grip on what debt is before you go about making doomsday scenarios on constitutional crises and what could happen to senior citizens.
First of all, the 14th Amendment says that debts “authorized by law” shall not be questioned. That means that the legislative process gets to decide when and how the debt limit is raised, NOT the courts. The courts would have no more constitutional foundation to order Congress to raise the debt limit than they would to direct the President to use the armed forces to repel a Canadian attack. The power to legislate and manage the use of the Federal budget is basically invested in the Congress, and not with the courts.
The courts do not have a responsibility to step in and protect one branch of government from making poor, but constitutional, decisions. If the collective will of Congress is not able to raise the debt limit, there will be severe consequences (not least of which on my retirement account), but the courts can’t just rush off and take over the reins when the other branches of government are screwing things up.
Finally, if the debt limit were to be exceeded, the government could not issue IOUs. That is debt. It’s right there in the name: “I OWE you.” There would be no Social Security IOUs. To the extent that current FICA receipts could cover liabilities, I’m sure that would be done; but I am frankly not sure to the extent to which the government uses short-term debt to finance entitlement benefits. I do know that Social Security surpluses are to be invested in long term debt, which would have to stop.
But in any case, the time between when the government estimates that the debt limit will be reached, and the time that can be bought by exchanging various internally-held government debt for non-debt instruments, for example, or rescheduling debt auctions, can buy weeks to perhaps even a couple months of time to work out a political deal. For example, in 2002, the Treasury warned that it was going to hit the debt ceiling in mid-February. The debt limit increase wasn’t signed into law until late May.
A prediction that the US economy – or the US government – is going to fail on some particular date in early 2011 is being a bit dramatic. Well, a lot dramatic.
Under what statute? The US government has sovereign immunity unless it abrogates that immunity.
Incorrect. In 1995, Congress had failed to pass an annual operating budget by the beginning of the fiscal year (01 October 1995). Government agencies cannot legally function without a budget in hand, except for those agencies operating on multi-year budgets, and/or when a threat to safety (police, fire, military) exists. With no Continuing Resolution (CR) in place, nor a final budget passed, “nonessential” government agencies were required to shut down.
This was not a debt ceiling issue. It was a CR issue.
First of all, get a grip on the term ‘budget impasse’.
Which is exactly what I’ve been saying.
[quote]
The courts would have no more constitutional foundation to order Congress to raise the debt limit than they would to direct the President to use the armed forces to repel a Canadian attack.*
DUH. Exactly what I’ve been saying.
And this is different from what I said exactly how?
No shit? Really? I’m shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.
Thanks for proving my whole OP point.
Get a grip on numerology, dude. Everyone knows it’s gonna be 2012. 
I’m saying the courts will be powerless to do jack monkey squat.
I’m having a hard time seeing how the Court would engage Congress in a Constitutional crisis.
What scenario do you have in mind that would result in the Court ordering “Congress to approve a raising of the debt limit”? As in, what hypothetical case would yield such a ruling?
Even getting over issues of standing, it strikes me that any scenario constructed could fall on ‘political question’ grounds–the Court would punt. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t write a fantasy SCOTUS holding for a case, but that the Court would never get there, preferring to avoid the impending crisis.
The debt limit is not a budgetary matter, at least in the sense of how the term budget is typically used (matching revenues to outlays). The debt limit is about the means of financing various government operations, even those which are operating at a surplus. For example, the SS trust fund carries many billions of dollars of surpluses each year - but all of those surpluses buy intragovernmental securities. Yes, excess cash in the budget buys debt.
No. It isn’t. Your OP basically asked how the courts would enforce a constitutional requirement to increase the debt limit, and how they would get Congress to vote on it. I’m saying there is no constitutional requirement to increase the debt limit, the courts could not constitutionally make such a ruling, therefore there is no crisis about how to get the legislative branch to follow such an order.
While the rest of your points have been hysterical nonsense, this comment is very well taken. None of this will matter in one year and a couple weeks when time ends in the Mayan apocalypse.
Is anyone else confused by the way that Le Jacquelope seems to be joining in with the consensus that the OP was wrong?
OP, How does not making additional charges on your credit card equal not making the minimum payment on your credit card?
Uh, yes it is.
I asked how the USSC would get Congress to vote on it because I knew for a fact that they don’t have the power to.
Furthermore, if Congress won’t raise the debt ceiling, they certainly also won’t agree to the deep austerity cuts needed to make the current debt payments. How can a default be avoided then? What power does the Supreme Court have to prevent a default then? Zip. Exactly what I’ve been saying.
My points are no more based on nonsense than yours have been based on a lack of reading skills.
Le Jacquelope, you may want to take a quick gander at the justiciability Wiki page. I think this may be at the root of why it seems that everyone seems to be saying slightly the same thing but disagreeing with each other nonetheless.
Basically, you’re right, there are certain things that the SCOTUS has no power to do–yet in many ways as the arbiters and ostensible enforcers of Constitutionality they should. However, there are some things that are nominally well within their purview that they nonetheless recuse themselves from considering.
What you seem to be saying is “what if there was a clear Constitutional mandate that the Congress act in a certain way, but clearly wouldn’t–what would the SCOTUS do?” To make it simpler (and avoid the question of whether raising the debt ceiling is required), consider a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment, one that clearly states that Congress shall pass one by October 1. If they don’t have one by then, what would the SCOTUS do?
A more concrete example, the Constitution grants the Senate the power to try impeachment proceedings. The Constitution also sets out certain due process rights during a trial–rights that have been heavily explored by the courts. However, none of the rights, protections, or anything else that the SCOTUS has said are inherent to due process applies to the Senate’s choices of how it runs an impeachment hearing. If the Senate decided that they wanted roll dice, dig through pig entrails, or play kickball to determine the outcome, SCOTUS has no authority to say otherwise–the Constitutional definition of due process during Senate impeachment proceedings is entirely up to the Senate.
As I said upthread, the SCOTUS recognizes that its position is not to order an equal branch of the government around–it is a political question and it would be up to the Congress to work out the Constitutionality of it. Given certain cases, the SCOTUS could act around it (say, by enjoining payment of certain funds until the budget is passed, but that is an extraordinarily fact-specific suggestion that could turn either way depending on the hypothetical underlying facts). But it would and could not compel Congress to do anything that is wholly within Congressional power.
So what is the point of this whole thread? So you can inform us that something Congress hasn’t done wouldn’t by overturned by the Supreme Court?
What’s the President’s non-role in all this?
Unless you were being facetious in your OP, you said that the Supreme Court “lacks the power to send police into Capitol Hill and force the House of Representatives into approving such a thing.” You seem to be arguing that the Supreme Court lacks an enforcement mechanism to hold another branch of government to obey its rulings.
That point is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to issue rulings on such a matter. It is not a matter of enforcing their ruling, as you stated in the OP, the problem is that the ruling would be inherently unconstitutional.
Again, you said that the Supreme Court’s powers are “laughably ineffective.” That doesn’t matter. It is not a question of enforcement. It’s a matter of the Supreme Court does not have a judiciable question before them. The courts have no interest or power to rule in budgetary disputes between the legislative or executive branches.
To say it a fourth time so I’m perfectly clear: it is not a matter of enforcement. The Supreme Court has no authority to make a ruling on any of these questions, so enforcement is moot.
“The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate”? Yes, although, first, Jackson was wrong and Georgia ultimately did back down, and second, that was 170 years ago and the court has increased in influence since then.
By the way, this is kind of a straw man. It is unconstitutional to default on a lawfully authorized debt.
If the law does not authorize the issuance of some amount of debt, that debt cannot be issued in the first place, therefore doesn’t have the full faith and credit of the United States.
Yes, because certain people said you can’t circumvent the Supreme Court on this issue.
The President could theoretically issue one of those executive orders, of course.
Why isn’t the OP a reply to those people? What people? What thread?
What does that mean? Do you mean that the President could issue an executive order mandating that Congress do something? That the SCOTUS could authorize the President to circumvent Congress if they fail to act? Or that the President could act on his own?
Either my interpretation of your statement or the statement itself is astronomically wrong. Could you clarify?
So if this is your argument… why then would it even matter whether defaulting on the debt is (theoretically) unconstitutional?
There’s so many apparent factors that can lead to a default which the Supreme Court has no power to stop.
In the case of this, or any other Constitutional crisis, two out of three win. If SCOTUS were to issue an order that the President refuses to enforce, then Congress is there to decide whether or not he should be impeached and removed from office.