Obama: Be prepared to violate the law to save the economy

[LuckyTheDog]

I don't know if I totally buy the argument for the 14th Amendment "option." But regardless, of whether it is valid or not Obama and the U.S. Treasury should be prepared to violate the law if that's what it takes to keep the economy from going into the tank.

This is a national security issue.

If Congress wants to impeach Obama for saving the economy, then let them try.

[sasha031]

1. Carney has repeated it again today, it's not an option

I don't believe it's against the law, why would so many expert be advocating it.
This is a time the President should put the country 1st, the swell of support for such an action would be astounding.

[kenny blankenship]

20. It should be against the law for Congress to buy something, then refuse to pay the bill

That's what refusal to expand the debt ceiling is. As Bill Clinton has pointed out, Congress bought this stuff already. They already voted on it. Now they are refusing to pay up.

The President may have to act as the debt collector of last resort in the case of a deadbeat Congress.

[crazylikafox]

22. Good analogy

[gratuitous]

2. You do remember . . .

This is the same administration that won't prosecute, won't even investigate, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[damntexdem]

5. Yeah, but Wall Street didn't ask him to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity.

They would be with him on this.

[gratuitous]

6. That's a good point

This little drama is rapidly foreclosing on any avenues likely to lead to a happy ending.

[Bok_Tukalo]

3. I'm not quite ready to abandon our form of government just yet

Congress holds The Purse. The Executive cannot snatch it.

[elleng]

8. Would not be 'snatching' any Congressional authority

by enabling Treasury to pay obligations already incurred, and approved by Congress some time ago. This would not include any new Appropriations.

[Bok_Tukalo]

14. That is debatable but regardless, it would require new debt

... and Article 1 Section 8 is pretty clear on which branch has the power to borrow.

The Credit Card is in The Purse, to extend the metaphor.

[elleng]

28. Would not REQUIRE new debt; would ENABLE new debt, and

payment of already existing debt.

Bonds issued by Treasury, right? Under what authority? Wondering; haven't studied this issue. I do understand the issue you raise. Exemplifies complicated matters of the moment. We lawyers love this stuff!

Article 1, Section 8: 'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;'

14th Amendment provides:

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. 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.

Potential conflict between these provisions? BRAND NEW law can be made, vis a vis Article 1, Congress shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts, and Amd 14, Validity of the public debt . . . authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned.

[DCBob]

4. Yes, it may come down to that and I believe our President is willing to do it.

I think he has already decided but of course he wont say that now in hopes that congress will come up with better solution.

[elleng]

9. Agreeing with you a lot these days, DC!

:thumbsup:

[DCBob]

17. I believe we have been more or less on the same page on most issues..

good to know Im not completely off-the-wall in my thinking.. ;)

[elleng]

7. Not 'violate the law,' as that issue is very far from being decided.

I agree, if nothing left he should do it, August 1 (or 2d.) Propriety won't be decided in court for some time.

Yea, let them try to impeach him for such.

[onenote]

10. Begging the question: would it "save the economy"

Or would the uncertainty surrounding the legality of the decision to rely on the 14th Amendment produce many of the same results as default -- namely a downgrading of the nation's credit rating and an increase in interest rates?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. good question. n/t

[Fool Count]

32. In fact, it would be much worse than the default.

With limited default at least the retiring US debt can be legally rolled over into new bonds
under the debt limit. Raising the debt limit without congressional authorization would make
all bonds issued after August 2 legally questionable and thus unlikely to find takers other
than the Federal Reserve. How is total loss of creditworthiness by US government going to
"save" the country is a bit of a mystery to me.

[DearAbby]

11. We have to do this legally

the strength of our Constitution. If we are going to live by it.

[LuckyTheDog]

18. As the right wing is fond of saying...

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Usually, I think that's wrong-headed. In most cases, I think the Constitution IS more or less a suicide pact. If we "save" ourselves by violating the Bill of Rights, we have not saved ourselves at all.

But I'll be DAMNED if I will face another long stint of unemployment because a bunch of sorry-ass teabaggers want to drag down the economy just to show that they can do it. It is an act of sedition that is more harmful to the Constitution than anything else going on.

[saras]

13. "Obama: Be prepared to violate the law to save the economy" - WHAT? WHERE did he say this?

If he's talking to us and not Congress, he seems to be advocating for whatever civil disobedience or other action it might take to bring the Republicans down.

No. He can't possibly mean that. I must still have traces of that "hope" stuff in my system.

On second reading, it appears that perhaps Obama didn't say that at all - it's just your advice to him.

Damn. Damn and double-damn. It's the best single statement I've heard attributed to Obama since I've even heard of him, and it isn't true.

[LuckyTheDog]

16. That was me "talking" to Obama

I did not use quotes.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. LOL

Don't use a colon like that. It's kind of confusing.

I thought Obama said this.

[MrDiaz]

15. THERE IS NO OPTION

In the 14th amendment, NOWHERE in any amendment, does it give the president power to create his own budget/deficit/debt

[LuckyTheDog]

19. I don't care

National security is at stake.

[MrDiaz]

21. LMFAO

that's exactly what all the repukes were saying about the war and the war crimes Bush committed. Which by the way are still going on, contrary to the promises our president made before being president. And the football game continues.

[LuckyTheDog]

31. This is not a matter of opinion

A default would be a disaster. That is a fact. This is not even a close call.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. In the absence of a debt limit increase

the president will obliged to create his own budget using his own priorities.

[elleng]

29. 14th Amendment says:

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. 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_cog_ni_to]

36. The President and Congress swore an oath to defend the Constitution

The Constitution states, in the 14th Amendment sec. 4 ...."the debt shall not be questioned." It's his duty, as the president, to do what Congress has failed to do....then all repukes in Congress should be arrested for NOT honoring the Constitution.

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. 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.

[Bandit]

23. What is most definitely a violation of LAW is to not extend the debt ceiling

The Constitution does not stutter on this issue. The USA will not default period.. That is the LAW. whether it takes the President or the Congress to get it doen is irrelevent. What is fact that doing nothing is not an option.

[MrDiaz]

24. The Constitution

Also has checks and balances for this same reason. Here is a good hypothetical, if obama does this, and lets say Rick Perry wins the next election. And the Dem's voted against more spending. Would you support Perry if he chose to raise the ceiling on his own? Because that is the exact precedent you are trying to set. IF OBAMA DOES THIS HE WILL BE IMPEACHED. Be careful what you wish for.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Here's the counterargument.

Ordering the treasury to issue debt to make up the shortfall isn't defensible on 14th amendment grounds because government does take in enough to pay creditors. Issuing a moratorium on new debt is not the same thing as defaulting on old debt.

Congress can cut spending by 70% if they want to, but it was always envisioned that they'd do it through the budget rather than simply delegating to the president the authority to develop his own budget with 30%.

[elleng]

30. Exactly.

'Issuing a moratorium on new debt is not the same thing as defaulting on old debt.'

[Fool Count]

34. The Constitution says nothing about default.

It only says that validity of US debt "will not be questioned". That only means that Congress
cannot declare any US government debts invalid and refuse to pay. Default does not question
validity of debts, just as bankruptcy does not question validity of bankrupt's debts. Legally
valid debts can always be re-negotiated or re-scheduled by mutual agreement between the creditors
and debtors, that's what default is for. That 14th amendment business is starting to cross from the
mere cookiness into sheer mass insanity. As if the fiscal crisis itself is not complicated enough,
we now want to plunge the country into a constitutional crisis too?

[rucky]

33. It's not violating the law, it's upholding the Constitution.

Voting down the debt ceiling is in violation of the law, because it overrides a Constitutional amendment with a simple majority.

[onenote]

35. then, under our system, the solution is to go to court

Under our separation of powers, if the legislature takes action that is alleged to be unconstitutional, the proper recourse is for the matter to be adjudicated in court and the action voided (and the congress directed to take other action if required). Notwithstanding the abuse of signing statements by some administrations, deciding what legislative actions are constitutional is the role of the judiciary, not the executive.