Assuming the debt limit bill passes, a crisis has been averted.
And it has been.
Some wanted Biden to assert that the 14th Amendment compels the
executive to pay the USA bills, implying I guess, the any debt
limit is unconstitutional.
I figure he could continue to borrow money in order to pay the
bills and a) no one would have standing to object, b) if anyone
had standing, they wouldn't have nerve enough to object, because
then it would be unmistakable** who was putting us in default, but
c) if someone with apparent standing did sue (the Speaker of the
House, representing the House?), Biden could continue paying as
long as the suit was undecided, including appeals. So he would
have months to continue paying, during which time they might d)
raise the debt limit, e) elect a new Congress?
Is a above true, no one would have standing?
Is b above true, no one would have the nerve?
But one admin official said the 14th Amendment would only buy them
a week or two!! Because I guess they think the courts would rule
quickly and would refuse to give a stay (then of course it would
be clear it was the court that was putting us in default if the
debt limit had not been increased!!!) And Biden himself said
more than once -- I forget the exact words -- that he didn't want
to do this*** because it would be necessary to put this before the
court and get a decision and there wasn't time to do this in time
for this deadline. As if there were time for the next debt limit
deadline.
***Did he really not want to do this because he had his alternate
plan in mind, the one he executed? And if that had failed, he
still could used the 14th Amendment plan this coming Tuesday.
BUT, BUT, BUT if US courts only handle cases in controversy, there
is no controversy until the debt limit has been surpassed and the
treasury continues to borrow more money (the situation we would
have been in this coming Tuesday if there had not been a
compromise, or the situation we will be in in 2 years if there is
no agrement then. )
Isn't the only way to get this issue before the court is to,
intentionally or not, wait until the debt limit is surpassed and
continue to borrow money? Doesn't Joe Biden know this?
And do you think this USSC, or a reasonable USSC would hold that
the law that established a debt limit is inferior to the 14th
Amendment's implications? Is obedience to a debt limit
equivalent to questioning the validity of the public debt? Or is
it just saying, Yeah the debt is valid but we still won't pay!?
Isn't that like saying, Yeah the accused is entitled to a trial
but we still won't have one.? Etc.
And do you think a stay would be granted on a lower court decision
against using the 14th until appeals were exhausted, and wouldn't
that take at least 3 months?
**During the negotiations, if one accepted that negotiations on
this were acceptable, then if no agreement was reached, it would
not be clear whose fault that was.
Is obedience to a debt limit equivalent to questioning
the validity of the public debt? Or is it just saying, Yeah the debt
is valid but we still won't pay!? Isn't that like saying, Yeah the
accused is entitled to a trial but we still won't have one.? Etc.
BUT, BUT, BUT if US courts only handle cases in controversy, there
is no controversy until the debt limit has been surpassed and the
treasury continues to borrow more money (the situation we would
have been in this coming Tuesday if there had not been a
compromise, or the situation we will be in in 2 years if there is
no agrement then. )
Sometimes courts hear cases where there is no controversy at the
moment, but there has been and will be again, especially when the
controversy does crop up, going to court is unrealistic and too slow.
Isn't the only way to get this issue before the court is to,
intentionally or not, wait until the debt limit is surpassed and
continue to borrow money? Doesn't Joe Biden know this?
No, not necessarily.
On 6/3/2023 9:17 PM, micky wrote:
Is obedience to a debt limit equivalent to questioning
the validity of the public debt? Or is it just saying, Yeah the debt
is valid but we still won't pay!? Isn't that like saying, Yeah the
accused is entitled to a trial but we still won't have one.? Etc.
No. It's more like, "This debt is valid, but we just don't have the
money to pay you. Just like people do when they can't pay their bills. >Sometimes the lender will foreclose (e.g., take the house or the car), >sometimes they'll go to court, and sometimes they'll just report the
unpaid debt to the big 3 credit bureaus and you'll have trouble
borrowing money (or pay a higher interest rate and/or down payment) for
some years.
BTW, I remember being told that while, like you say, it's hard to borrow money with a bad credit report, after you declare bankruptcy it's easier
or easy to borrow money, because creditors know you can't go bankrupt
again for n (7?) years.
Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
micky wrote:
Is obedience to a debt limit equivalent to questioning
the validity of the public debt? Or is it just saying, Yeah
the debt is valid but we still won't pay!? Isn't that like
saying, Yeah the accused is entitled to a trial but we still
won't have one.? Etc.
No. It's more like, "This debt is valid, but we just don't have
the money to pay you. Just like people do when they can't pay
their bills. Sometimes the lender will foreclose (e.g., take the
house or the car), sometimes they'll go to court, and sometimes
they'll just report the unpaid debt to the big 3 credit bureaus
and you'll have trouble borrowing money (or pay a higher interest
rate and/or down payment) for some years.
Well, that would mean that the 14th Amendment gambit would not
work.
Yet Lawrence Tribe among others thinks it will. (Violating my own
rule. I have no idea what he thinks. I only know what he says.
He says he thinks it will.)
BTW, I remember being told that while, like you say, it's hard to
borrow money with a bad credit report, after you declare
bankruptcy it's easier or easy to borrow money, because creditors
know you can't go bankrupt again for n (7?) years.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 4 Jun 2023 07:27:45 -0700 (PDT), Barry
BTW, I remember being told that while, like you say, it's hard to borrow >money with a bad credit report, after you declare bankruptcy it's easier
or easy to borrow money, because creditors know you can't go bankrupt
again for n (7?) years.
That doesn't make any sense. If creditors know you've gone bankrupt,
that means they know you have defaulted on your debts. To me,
bankruptcy would make it virtually impossible to get further credit,
except, perhaps, at lone-shark type rates
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 251 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:35:08 |
| Calls: | 5,549 |
| Files: | 11,676 |
| Messages: | 5,110,915 |