Well researched

By ignoring any SCOTUS ruling that says congress has the power to trigger a default on the debt.

Biden currently has the hammer. For a refreshing change of Democratic pace - USE IT!

"That's a bad law. I don't like it. I just repealed it."

should incentivize Biden to throw down the gauntlet and challenge SCOTUS to do the right thing or shame itself in history as a pathetic, corrupt, partisan, authoritarian, and politically servile institution.

I would hate, really hate, to see our President cave in to the likes of Kevin McCarthy and his fellow congressional fascists. Were he to do so, and agree to "negotiate" on the national debt ceiling, he will increase the likelihood that Fatso will beat him in 2024. (I will vote for Biden regardless, but there many, perhaps millions, of Democrat-leaning voters who may just choose to stay away and not vote at all in 2024 were he to cave on this issue.)

..he gets paid $$Millions by private funding.

Spit my coffee out

to use as a precedent for denying the claim

To Cro-Magnon cave paintings. Maybe then he could finally find something that supports harming a big portion of the American people like his Dobbs decision. Nothing newer supports overturning passing our debts

(according to the bibble), so they couldn't have written on any cave walls.

Textualism and Originalism are akin to the Saducees and the Pharisees.

It matters not which flavor one chooses, one has still chosen delusion.

Delusion has no regard for man's humanity. Delusion only serves one master, the delusion itself.
It must be maintained at all costs, otherwise the delusional façade would crumble and fade away.

Reason serves reason.

It's great to have a big helping serving every day!
It's how one keeps delusion away!

May reason rule in spite of Alito et al.

Thank you!!

Doesn’t mean anything unfortunately

and it's their handlers that paid them to think so.

The Land of Plenty!!!!
Fascists enriching fascists.

Nothing to see here...

and serve for life. They don't care.

Takes heat off Biden.

The full scope of Tribe’s position, that it is a president’s duty to faithfully execute all of the laws, including congressionally authorized budget expenditures, regardless of the debt ceiling, has not been tested in court, so one can’t really say he is “right”.

Tribe’s position relies more on the presidential oath of office, and less on the debt clause of the 14th amendment.

of two unconstitutional options. On the one hand, he contends that defaulting on debt would violate the 14th amendment. At the same time, however, he concedes that for the Executive Branch to unilaterally issue new bonds to raise money or to unilaterally raise taxes also would be unconstitutional. But he decides that the principle of "least unconstitutional" option should control the outcome.

But the courts have never, to my knowledge, ever recognized a legal theory based on the "least unconstitutional" outcome. Rather, the courts follow the principle of avoiding constitutional conflicts. Thus, the court would have to find either that defaulting is not a violation of the 14th amendment or that the executive branch can borrow or tax without congressional authority.

Given those two choices, I wouldn't rule out a court finding that the 14th Amendment is limited to situations, such as that in the Perry case, where Congress, after the fact, seeks to invalidate an obligation, rather than where it defaults on the obligation by not making timely payment (but doesn't seek to nullify or otherwise abrogate the obligation for all time).

The budget resolutions are not signed by the president and are not law. They establish the framework for the consideration of spending and revenue bills on the House and Senate floor. Congress, through its committees, then takes up appropriations bills. Similarly, separate legislation is needed to change or suspend the debt limit.

This case almost explicitly rejects the notion that Congress can't place a cap on the amount borrowed - and appears to me to differentiate between "binding obligations" (debt instruments) and the budgetary process.

And, since it's obviously post-14A, it demolishes the notion that the original document's restriction of the debt-creation power to Congress was modified by 14A.

that Biden has agreed to some small budget cuts, hope he uses the 14th amendment and pulls back on
any budget cuts.

Mint The Platinum coins under the 1997 platinum coinage act. Use the 1974 Budget act as a second defense when Congress tries to sue. This should have been happening already and then feature the compromise of the 3 trillion in hikes we have now proposed.

Notwithstanding folks throwing around terms like stare decisis and precedent, the Perry case, if anything, may help those opposed to the use of the 14th Amendment to address the current debt ceiling crisis more than it helps those in favor.

Why? Because the Perry case involved the adoption of a resolution by Congress that, in the words of the Court, constituted a "complete repudiation of the gold clause in some 18 billion dollars of outstanding bonds of the United States". The Court also found that the purpose and effect of the resolution was to abrogate, nullify, and invalidate obligations entered into by the United States.

In the case of the debt ceiling crisis, Congress is not nullifying, abrogating, or rendering invalid any obligations. The result of not extending the debt ceiling means that the government will default on its obligations, but it will not mean those obligations no longer exist. Indeed, as additional revenues are received by the government in the form of tax revenues and other fees, those who are owed money by the government would have a claim on those funds.

There's a reason why the 14th Amendment hasn't been used to address previous debt ceiling impasses (just as there is a reason that the Impoundment Act of 1974 has never been used). Anyone who thinks the issues presented are simple and easily resolved is fooling themselves.

The notion of somehow invoking the 14th amendment rests on the premise that a failure to increase the debt limit somehow erases the debt that already exists.

Literally no one is asserting that premise.

But, but, but...I've read here over and over to just invoke the 14th, easy peasy, case closed. How could that not be true?

Don't expect anything else.

So Biden MUST invoke 14th, or we w be defenseless. No footsying with hostage takers. MoJoe w just need to rip the bandaid off & let the constitution hating GOP bleed themselves to shame. Whoops i 4got they have none.

It's the law.

with them about the meaning of words. They may claim that the debts and obligations are still valid but they don't have the money to meet them and therefore they are not altering or destroying the obligations and debts. Similar to a debtor being able to acknowledge the validity of the debt, in other words the service/materials provided or financial instrument (bond) acted upon, is not in dispute but the debtor hasn't raised current resources to pay it but does have the ability to raise the resources.

That reluctant stance for a private debtor of course would get challenged in court and a fully honest and functioning court, which of course we don't have, would properly instruct the defendant to raise the resources. We don't however know about the SC compelling the Congress to take a specific action. We are most familiar with the courts striking down laws they've passed. The SC would basically be asked to compel the House to take a vote. Knowing this bunch of MAGA justices they would immediately fall back on a separation of powers ruling. Unless of course Harlan's money would be negatively impacted and then in that case Cash and Carry Clarence would claim he never heard of separation of powers.

The long and short may come down to whether it can be argued to the SC that there is a Constitutional basis for them to order affirmatively voting on and enacting a bill. In the case where they find that something passed by Congress violates the Constitution they are negating a Congressional action. It could be very problematic if the SC were to get itself into the position where the crooked justices could force a narrowly divided Congress, that is under the control of the party opposite the justices, to pass certain laws/take certain acts deemed "necessary" by the SC justices themselves.

You can’t compare the US government to an individual debtor. The government is the both the debtor, and has the power to print money to fulfill those debts.

they do have the power to do so but can the SC compel them to do so? What Constitutional basis? Marbury v Madison is taken to give them the authority for judicial review of laws already passed. It says nothing about actions not yet taken and then compelling that action.

The comparison of the US and an individual debtor is absolutely valid for the purposes that I used it which was to amplify the issue of definition of words about debts and you'll notice that I specifically made note of a major difference between the US and non-governmental debtor when I said that an individual debtor may be instructed by a court to raise the resources, if available, to pay a debt but that is not at all clear for Constitutional authority to order Congress to do so for the reasons I stated. You certainly can compare the two types of debtors for similarities and differences especially with regard to legal implications and powers of the SC under the Constitution and prior rulings. Making comparisons of these things is not equating the two.

I know that Chair Powell has said the Fed won't accept them on deposit, but Sec. Yellen can auction $10,000,000 platinum coins to large companies, which can then pay them back to the Treasury to satisfy (part of) their tax obligations. The Federal Reserve need not be part of it, and the companies involved get a tax break (since they get to eliminate $10,000,000 of their tax burden at whatever their winning bid is).

Following your suggested course of action would still be catastrophic, as the US credit rating would be significantly downgraded.

Also, who do you think is going to buy a trillion dollar coin? No publicly held company’s shareholders would permit such a purchase.

I feel you did not read my post

That would be catastrophic.

No one would touch it.

...what would Harlan do?

It’s a given, unfortunately.

Most don't know the Federal Fiscal Budget year. A Bill Clinton proved it.