{"id":5870,"date":"2013-01-13T07:48:15","date_gmt":"2013-01-13T15:48:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=5870"},"modified":"2013-01-13T07:48:15","modified_gmt":"2013-01-13T15:48:15","slug":"fourteenth-amendment-re-redux","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=5870","title":{"rendered":"Fourteenth Amendment Re-Redux"},"content":{"rendered":"

Perhaps I'm a Constitutional hipster, in-so-far as I was talking about section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment before it was cool to do so<\/a>. After it had<\/em> become cool, I felt moved to explain<\/a>

[The Fourteenth Amendment] is indeed [the law<\/em> that empowers the President to increase the ceiling] — where the only<\/em> way not otherwise in violation of the Constitution to pay debt that has come due is to borrow beyond the existing limit. If the debt can be paid in some other<\/em> way, then no special authority can be found for the President in section 4.

[…] The President doesn't get<\/em> to say that he or she must raise the limit to continue funding institutions to which he or she can apply profound<\/em> and moving<\/em> terms, unless those institutions are indeed Constitutionally mandated<\/em>.<\/a><\/blockquote><\/p>

With talk of the President raising the borrowing limit by decree<\/em> again heating-up, I feel moved to labor aspects of what I'd earlier explained.<\/p>

As debt comes due, for which sufficient funding has not been allocated, the Federal government can do one or more of five<\/em> things: