????近幾周，美國財(cái)長(zhǎng)蒂姆?蓋特納在關(guān)于債務(wù)上限的辯論中頻頻發(fā)力，并暗示總統(tǒng)可以通過美國憲法第十四修正案（the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution）之精神輕松提升債務(wù)上限。近8周以來，這一說法在坊間廣為流傳。5月25日，在邁克?阿倫（美國頗有影響力的記者，服務(wù)于政治新聞?lì)惥W(wǎng)站Politico.com，該網(wǎng)站同時(shí)出版同類讀物Playbook——譯注）宴請(qǐng)蓋特納的Politico Playbook早餐上，該策略才開始以更正式的面貌流傳開來。

????用餐時(shí)，在被阿倫問及有關(guān)潛在的債務(wù)違約及債務(wù)上限爭(zhēng)議時(shí)，蓋特納回復(fù)道：“我認(rèn)為有些人是明知故問，他們以為總會(huì)有辦法來對(duì)付違約。這個(gè)問題無需再討論。好好想想吧，有時(shí)我真想說—難道真的要我給你們讀讀第十四條修正案嗎？”

????盡管奧巴馬總統(tǒng)一直在回避對(duì)第十四條修正案做出評(píng)論或解釋，然而蓋特納作為公認(rèn)的政府發(fā)言人直言不諱地指出，第十四條修正案賦予了總統(tǒng)提升債務(wù)上限的法律權(quán)利。

????在早餐當(dāng)中，蓋特納還宣讀了第十四修正案第四款節(jié)選章節(jié)：

????“經(jīng)法律認(rèn)可的合眾國公債，包括因支付平定暴亂或叛亂有功人員的養(yǎng)老金和獎(jiǎng)金而產(chǎn)生的債務(wù)，其效力不容質(zhì)疑。但合眾國或任何一州都不得承擔(dān)或償付因資助對(duì)合眾國作亂或謀叛而產(chǎn)生的任何債務(wù)或義務(wù)，或因喪失或解放任何奴隸而提出的任何賠償要求；所有此類債務(wù)、義務(wù)和要求均應(yīng)被認(rèn)為是非法和無效的?！?/em>

????Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has heightened the debate over the debt ceiling extension in recent weeks by implying that the President could simply push through an extension of the debt ceiling based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While rumors of this defense have been circulating for the last 8 weeks or so, the idea was more officially circulated at a May 25th Politico Playbook breakfast at which Mike Allen was hosting Geithner.

????At that breakfast, Allen asked Geithner about a potential default and the debt ceiling debate and Geithner responded with the following:

????"I think there are some people who are pretending not to understand it, who think there's leverage for them in threatening a default. I don't understand it as a negotiating position. I mean really think about it, you're going to say that-- can I read you the Fourteenth Amendment?"

????Even as President Obama has avoided opining or interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, Geithner, who presumably is speaking as a representative of the administration, has made it very clear that he believes that Fourteenth Amendment gives a President the legal right to extend the debt ceiling.

????As noted, in the same breakfast Geithner then read the following excerpt, Section 4, from the Fourteenth Amendment:

????"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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

????In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has actually ruled on the Fourteenth Amendment in Perry v United States (1935). This case was part of a series of cases brought before the United States Supreme Court that were known as the Gold Clause Cases. The gist of these cases was to question whether the U.S. Congress could change the form by, or terms under which, U.S. debts could be repaid.

????The ruling by the Supreme Court in Perry v United States specifically referenced Section 4 in the following excerpt:

????"Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned," is confirmatory of a fundamental principle, applying as well to bonds issued after, as to those issued before, the adoption of the Amendment, and the expression "validity of the public debt" embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

????So, in effect, it would appear that there is some precedent for Geither's statements as it seems that the United States Supreme Court has previously ruled that voiding a U.S. government debt is beyond the power of Congress. Here is the ruling.

????As is outlined in the following chart, the credit default swap markets on U.S. government debt are signaling that a default on U.S. government is highly unlikely and the odds of such haven't increased much over the last six months, which perhaps also gives credence to Geithner's view. Currently, CDS on 10-year U.S. treasuries are trading at 58bps, which is well off its highs for the year. By way of comparison, German 10-year CDS are trading at 59bps, Greek CDS are trading at 1,550bps, and Spanish CDS are trading at 268bps.

????即使如蓋特納所說，奧巴馬總統(tǒng)有權(quán)單方面決定提升債務(wù)上限，且這一切都有法可依，但問題在于這一舉措是否真的能成為最現(xiàn)實(shí)的解決辦法或最明智的政治途徑。就后一點(diǎn)而言，即便奧巴馬揮舞第十四修正案這把令箭讓共和黨統(tǒng)轄的國會(huì)俯首稱臣，這一策略的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在于隨后可能出現(xiàn)的美國主權(quán)債務(wù)信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)上升，以及高院可能就這一問題向兩黨直接攤牌。

????因此，總統(tǒng)和其民主戰(zhàn)線真的會(huì)選擇第十四修正案這一出路嗎？盡管參議員舒默個(gè)人并不一定代表全體民主黨人，但在7月1日與記者通話時(shí)，關(guān)于第十四修正案這一問題，他的回答是：“肯定值得一試”

????的確如此。

????Even if we accept that President Obama has the legal authority to make a unilateral decision on extending the debt ceiling as Geithner has been suggesting and legal precedent appears to support, the question is really whether it is the most practical or best political path to take. Regarding the latter point, it would seem that while President Obama would get a clear win by trumping the Republican Congress with the Fourteenth Amendment, the downside risk to this strategy is a potentially increased credit risk associated with U.S. sovereign debt and a potential Supreme Court showdown between Republicans and Democrats.

????So, would the President and the Democratic rank and file actually pursue the Fourteenth Amendment option? While he doesn't necessarily speak for all Democrats, Senator Schumer said on a call to reporters on July 1st when asked about the Fourteenth Amendment responded, "It is certainly worth exploring."

????Indeed.