re: #55 Obdicut

I think it is meaningless.

hmm, all right. I’d even tend to agree with you. however, there’s a long-standing consensus otherwise. that can’t just be deemed irrelevant without further argument.

oh well, before you get me completely wrong:

But that’s not why. The clear purpose of the clause is that the debt and creditworthiness of the US not be questioned. That’s the intention and purpose of the paragraph. Agreed?

Remember, this is existing debt we’re talking about. The US government owes these monies. This is debt that’s coming due.

no argument from me; that debt ceiling should just be raised. period.

point of contention is not whether to pay off this debt which is basically already owed anyway, it’s whether the US executive branch has the authority to do so.

as I understand the general interpretation of article 1 section 8 of the constitution is not just that congress has the power to incur debt, but the sole power. now I like the way you bypass that by stating they incurred it by enacting the law in the first place; it does however seem to me that is not the standing interpretation of these provisions.

you are bypassing a hell of a lot of standing interpretation here.
once again, I like it. I just wonder if it’s gonna fly.

not trying to get into a debate here, we basically agree on the end anyway. I just find your solution… creative. (which coming from anyone in the legal field, tends to be a compliment in more than one way ;) ).