Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Governor Tim Pawlenty Violates the Constitution

He said

Secretary of State Clinton, in China about a week ago, [was] publicly pleading with the Chinese to buy our debt, because the federal government is now so reliant on debt financing that the point at which China or sovereign wealth funds or others discontinue buying the federal debt, the house of cards they have constructed in Washington DC comes tumbling down. They're going to have the government debt equivalent, some years from now, of today's mortgage crisis, in my opinion.


Now you might think that such a declaration was protected by the first amendment. However, the first amendment wasn't the last amendment and it was partially repealed by the 14th amendment which includes the following clause

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

[skip]
Section 4.
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."
[skip]


Since July 9, 1868*, the US has not had freedom of speech. You can say anything except you can't question the validity of the pubic debt of the United States.

The 14th amendment does not propose sanctions for violation of the "validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned clause.

Also Pawlenty is such a fool. US public debt sold at what is very likely to be the highest price debt ever has had. 1 month T-bills sold for more than their face value implying a negative interest rate. I know he is making predictions for the long run, but his predictions are crazy.

* update: highly embarrassing typo corrected thanks to anonymous in comments.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

You wrote:

Since July 9, 1968, the US has not had freedom of speech. You can say anything except you can't question the validity of the pubic debt of the United States.

I suspect this is supposed to refer to the date that the 14th amendment went into effect, but that was sometime in the 19th C, not 20th. Furthermore, in interpreting this amendment, the courts have bowdlerized it more than any other (possible exceptions to this claim include the 9th and 10th amendments), so neglect of this section is unsurprising.

Anonymous said...

Nicely done, actually a bunch of important posts.

Robert said...

Anonymous 1. OOOOPS that is an embarrassing typo. Thanks for pointing it out.