- 程序有所改变。发帖如还有问题请报告
- 【征集】西西河的经济学，及清流措施，需要主动参与者，『稷下学宫』新认证方式，24年网站打算和努力目标
主题：个人观点：也许，全球热战离我们不远了 -- 钢铁飓风
共:💬24 🌺111 新:
根据是美国宪法第14修正案第4款
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.
（不得质疑法律授权的美国公共债务的有效性，包括为制止叛乱或叛乱而支付的养恤金和赏金所产生的债务。）甚至有一种解读是赖账这事连提都不能提，提了就是违宪（当然权威解读权在最高法院）：
Did Lindsey Graham just violate the 14th Amendment during an appearance on Fox News?林赛·格雷厄姆（Lindsey Graham）在福克斯新闻（Fox News）露面时是否违反了《十四条修正案》？
At a bare minimum, this amendment would appear to make it unconstitutional to “cancel” Treasury bonds held by the Chinese government or businesses. But it might go even further than that — some have interpreted the phrase “shall not be questioned” more literally, to mean that public officials are bound not to say anything that would make creditors “question” the validity of the public debt. If that is the case, then Graham would have violated the Constitution simply by saying he wants debt held by China to be canceled.
（至少，这一修正案似乎使“取消”中国政府或企业持有的国债违宪。 但这可能会更进一步—一些人更从字面上解释了“不得质疑”一词，以表示公职人员一定不能说任何会使债权人“质疑”公共债务有效性的事情。 如果真是这样，那么格雷厄姆只要说他希望取消中国持有的债务便会违反宪法。） 通宝推：桥上,
- 相关回复 上下关系8
🙂待认可未通过。偏要看
🙂研究几个新冠的新亚种，比核弹有用多了 3 田昭明 字105 2020-04-12 04:05:21
🙂确实是越来越严峻的态势 8 大厅外的散户 字304 2020-04-12 01:36:11
🙂赖账可能违宪哦
🙂似乎他们现在有条件通过修正案取消这一条 桥上 字0 2020-04-14 02:46:22
🙂待认可未通过。偏要看
🙂美国的国债是不记名的 6 newbird 字255 2020-04-12 02:02:15
🙂待认可未通过。偏要看