It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [...]
Asked whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”
He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”
Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.
Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [...]
Definition of VALIDITY: This term Is used to signify legal sufficiency, in contradistinction to mere regularity.
originally posted by: notmyrealname
Business negotiation, finance and geo-politics.
Potentially things that your not familiar with if you are asking that question.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Profusion
A US president cannot unilaterally change it under any circumstances.
Did you read my reply? I said that.
Now what is the issue if the creditors agree to a reduction?
I'm not an expert but my understanding of the above is the debt of the US has the equivalence of any other US law. That means that it must be followed exactly.
originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Simply there is no issue...
originally posted by: Profusion
I absolutely do not believe that the amount of the debt cannot be lowered even if "the creditors agree to lower the debt." Why? Because of the explanation that I just gave concerning the term "validity" and it's meaning in this context.
If you're going to claim that it's not unconstitutional to lower the debt because the creditors agree to do it, please give me evidence that it's legal. Without evidence outside of your opinion I won't be replying to you on this topic again.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Profusion
I absolutely do not believe that the amount of the debt cannot be lowered even if "the creditors agree to lower the debt." Why? Because of the explanation that I just gave concerning the term "validity" and it's meaning in this context.
If you're going to claim that it's not unconstitutional to lower the debt because the creditors agree to do it, please give me evidence that it's legal. Without evidence outside of your opinion I won't be replying to you on this topic again.
Not that way it works. If you think it is illegal for creditors to lower a debt you need to provide legal precedent.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Profusion
I think you have misunderstood the law a little here.
If validity is the issue, as long as the creditor is happy to take a cut for whatever reason, the validity of the debt remains unblemished, regardless of the total amount due, or if that total amount changes with the express permission of the creditor.
The only point at which the validity of the debt would be imperilled, is if the president refused to pay it, or to pay a lower amount, without consulting the creditors and essentially forcing them to either put up or shut up.
originally posted by: Profusion
The precedent is the Constitution of the United States. There is no higher precedent.
Because I'm giving you words directly from the Constitution of the United States as evidence for my claim, you would need to give me evidence that the words that are clearly written there don't need to be followed.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Profusion
The precedent is the Constitution of the United States. There is no higher precedent.
The Constitution is not case law. Legal precedent on fiduciary responsibilities have been addressed at all levels of the United States justice system and you need to cite one where creditors are NOT permitted to legally lower their debt load on a creditor.
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
www.lonelyconservative.com...
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Because I'm giving you words directly from the Constitution of the United States as evidence for my claim, you would need to give me evidence that the words that are clearly written there don't need to be followed.
Do you even know how the Constitution functions? It is not a list of things the government can do, it is a list of things it cannot. Everything else is open to interpretation by the courts. The Constitution says the debt must be paid, it does not say a creditor cannot renegotiate a debt. End of story.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [...]
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
The debt "shall not be questioned" is the interesting part.
Wouldn't renegotiation count as questioning the debt?
originally posted by: Profusion
I will take the opinion of a Justice of the Supreme Court over your opinion:
Again:
I'm not an expert but my understanding of the above is the debt of the US has the equivalence of any other US law. That means that it must be followed exactly. A US president cannot unilaterally change it under any circumstances.
...you didn't offer one source to support any of your claims.