House Democratic Leaders To Obama: Use The 14th Amendment

[avaistheone1]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders emerged from a Wednesday Caucus meeting with a message for President Barack Obama: Invoke the Constitution to resolve the debt standoff.

If Congress can't reach a deal on a long-term debt limit increase by August 2, Obama should "sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment," said Assistant Minority Leader James Cyburn (D-S.C.).

"I am convinced that whatever discussions about the legality of that can continue," Clyburn said. "But I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets."

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) acknowledged that Obama has previously expressed doubts about his legal authority to unilaterally raise the debt limit. But circumstances have changed, Larson said, and "we just want to let him know that his Caucus is prepared to stand behind him" if Congress fails to pass a long-term deal.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/house-democratic-leaders-urge-obama-to-use-14th-amendment_n_910878.html

---

As Obama has said "make him do it".

[FreakinDJ]

1. McSmiles - I'm Lovin it

[RedCloud]

180. dangerous precedent set if we have any repug Prez.

[BNJMN]

240. Won't it have to pass the (conservative) SC first anyway? nt

[Raven]

2. If it comes to that and Obama invokes the 14th and saves the

world economy from ruin, the folks who sue him aren't gonna look too good.

[Wait Wut]

4. True.

But, they won't care 'cause they'll look like heroes to the teapers.

I'm more concerned with the distraction. The debt isn't the only thing that needs to be addressed and a stupid court case is just going to put everything on the back burner.

I dunno. I'm torn. I want it used, but only if there's no other way out.

[murielm99]

7. The teabaggers are losing support everywhere.

Even conservative repubbies have figured out they are nuts.

Everyone will be hurt if something is not done.

What is the "everything" that is going on the back burner? SS and Medicare? They don't need to be tampered with. They can be taken off the stove entirely!

Let them scream and try to take it to court. Even if the conservative leaning court decides against him, there will be other options. Obama will be a hero for saving the world economy from the batshit crazy ones.

The Supreme Court needs some scrutiny itself. Maybe a decision against Obama is a good way to start that ball rolling.

[Wait Wut]

16. Yes, but...

...the Rs don't understand that. I don't know why they continue to listen to the 5 or 6 that are left. Maybe they're just really lonely and need the approval of anyone.

Back burner...unemployment, health care, the (rest of the) economy, wars, education, my free cookies, etc. I saw this crap happen when Clinton was President. No, wasn't crazy about the man, but I really wish he could have concentrated on his job and not a cum stain. The fight for Pres. Obama would obviously be more admirable and he'd receive a million times the support from American citizens, but it would still be a distraction.

Like I said, I don't know. It's a crap shoot option and could go either way. We may need it. It may make a martyr out of our President, but it could save us. We need someone with a crystal ball to tell us how bad the aftermath could be before I can get behind it even 60%. Right now, I'm at about 56% in support.

[AlbertCat]

48. We need someone with a crystal ball to tell us how bad the aftermath ...

Pu-leeze. That doesn't exist.

What a Teabagger thing to say! We need a sooth sayer? Can't god just tell Michell Bachmann what will happen?

Cheesus... could some adults please run the country?????? Magic is not an option for either side!

[Wait Wut]

164. Reading comprehension 101

I said in order for ME to support the 14TH AM.OPTION.

Michelle Bachmann has nothing to do with what I support.

What a teaper attitude!!!

[LetTimmySmoke]

56. Add on Obama seeking their approval as well, and you can see the recalcitrance.

[klook]

149. Comparing the Blue Dress to the debt ceiling??

That dog won't hunt.

[A wise Man]

162. Teabaggers..Sleezebaggers...

"THEY ARE STILL REPUBLICANS".....JUST A BUNCH OF SIMPLE MINDED DUMBASS IGNORANT AND BIGGOTED HATE MONGERS.

[A wise Man]

163. Teabaggers..Sleezebaggers...

"THEY ARE STILL REPUBLICANS".....JUST A BUNCH OF SIMPLE MINDED, DUMBASS, IGNORANT AND BIGGOTED HATE MONGERS.

[sarcasmo]

234. Sleazebaggers is right.

[drm604]

32. Who would have standing to take it to court?

Congress maybe, but the Senate likely wouldn't cooperate.

[cyberpj]

67. Knowing the power our Supremes have taken lately maybe they would just call him on it themselves! nt

[No Elephants]

123. They have absolute no binding way of doing that.

An individual justice or two or even fiverun his or her mouth to the press, but so what?

Obama can do the same, along with one WH house staffer after another, one member of the administration after another, one member of the House Dem Caucus after another, one member of the Senate Dem Caucus after another and so on.

[cyberpj]

169. Just an off the cuff joke. I'd believe anything after the 2000 election. nt

[No Elephants]

122. The House may be able to do it on its own. I think they decided to defend cases Obama

was not going to defend anymore on their own. (DOMA or DADT--I've forgotten which) Or, at least said they might.

However, suing the President because Treasury paid for children, vets, the disabled and the elderly? Only someone who was very, very tired of being re-elected would do that.

And, for some reason, these @@###$$ never seem to tire of "public service" until some poll or another tells them they don't have a prayer in the next primary and/or general election--and even then, they don't always quit. (See octagenarian Arlen Spectacle and Strom Thurmond, for only 2 of many examples.)

And, even assuming someone did having standing to sue and did in fact sue, so what? Nothing says Obama would lose the suit. And, if he lost, so what?

[ColesCountyDem]

243. The House would have standing, most likely.

Under Section 5, 'Congress', being given the power to enforce the Amendment, would have standing. Whether or not that would require the Senate's concurrence is unclear. The SC would also have to decide whether or not the case was 'ripe'; that is to say that at the time of the filing of the lawsuit, that injury has actually occurred or is likely to occur, based on the extant facts at the time of filing, rather than the injury being remote, hypothetical or conjectural in nature. Both standing and ripeness must be present at the time of filing for the Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction.

[renegade2011]

55. "Lots of other things that need to be addressed"

Um, seriously?
You do realize that if the 'Baggers are permitted to allow the U.S. to defalt, that seriously breaks NOT just the U.S.A., but damn near the entire global economy, right?
All of that "other stuff that needs to be addressed" WILL most definitely end up not merely on the "back burner" -- but relegated to total impossibility, under that scenario. Infrastructure investment? Nope. "Obamacare?" Dead. Social Safety-net? = :(

Until (or unless) this manufactured debt-ceiling "crisis" is conclusively averted (or hell, at postponed for six months!), none of that "other stuff" means jack shit, and you know it.


Priorities, people -- wambling about the "importance" of gay marriage in New York (wonderful as that is and all) with the Teabagger wolves itching for our collective throats, is basically rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic, if you ask me.

This is a "distraction" like immanent global thermonuclear war would be a "distraction".

[No Elephants]

125. The only one who can allow the U.S. to default is Obama, boss of the Treasury.

[FogerRox]

87. SO right, A distraction. Owwww look....Pretty Shiney...... sparkly

Ahh, I mean Jobs, Social Security, Solar and Wind.......

[MrModerate]

95. But a stupid court case would quickly descend into a snarl of lawyers . . .

And the people wouldn't pay attention for very long. Not even back-burner, but off the stove entirely. The idea is certainly appealing.

[No Elephants]

127. Every case involves battling lawyers. So what?

[MrModerate]

232. I predict the air would leak out of the balloon . . .

(or be deliberately let out) while the lawyers were snarling. Given the attention span of the media, it would quickly lose their interest.

Admittedly, 'Licans and 'Baggers would attempt to keep whipping up a frenzy, but I don't think they'd be successful.

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Define "saves the country from ruin"

They will claim that nothing bad was going to happen anyway, or that somehow he made it worse.

Difficult to prove a negative.

[No Elephants]

Dupe.

[No Elephants]

Another dupe!

[No Elephants]

126. They'll claim something bad about Obama, no matter what. So what?

[truedelphi]

44. Yep, we wage slaves really need an Emancipation Proclamation

We really and truly do.

Good thing that Mr Lincoln wasn't as shy about issuing such a proclamation. (though it did not add to his popularity, at the time.)

And I am sure that the media would slam Obama for his issuing a Proclamation. But doing the right thing is called for. The proclamation needs to include wording to the effect that the budget ceiling is to be raised, and also that since Social Security is indeed its own separate fund, with a surplus, it is not to be any part of a deal.

And however hard the media slams him, maybe Obama can remind them that those 62% of all voters who elected him are the change that we were waiting for, and that he does have to answer to us. (A quaint idea during a non-election year, but who is going to vote for you, President Obama if you don't occasionally do what is required.)

But the media is not the seventy percent of the American people who need the politicians that they have elected to once in a while do the right thing.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Puget Progressive]

97. The problem is

that based on his utterances going back years he is really a corporatist who wants to phase out Social Security and the others despite the campaign posturing. I doubt if he will use the 14th Amendment to break this stalemate. He seems quite comfortable with the severe cutbacks demanded by Rethugs like Boehner and Cantor as long as there is a minimum negative effect on his re-election plans.

[Pacifist Patriot]

166. I can't see how they'd be able to establish standing.

If the measure did save the world economy from ruin it would be pretty hard to claim injury.

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. Timing is everything.

He has to do it the day after soldiers paychecks bounce.

[yodermon]

3. Would this really "calm financial markets"?

If there is still some "question" about the validity of Obama's actions (should he invoke the 14th), then markets may react as if a de facto default has in fact occurred.

Also I'm curious about the continued use of the word "invoke" wrt the 14th amendment. It's used as a macro to summarize mechanisms that I haven't seen fully explained.

[thereismore]

6. It would definitely calm the lenders because they would continue getting money, which is

what they worry about now.

[Fool Count]

64. Where would the money that they "would continue getting" be coming from?

Who would be buying legally questionable bonds? Nobody except for the Federal Reserve.
The money for the interest payments and redemption will all be coming straight from
under the Treasury's presses. That would surely "calm" the lenders. And by "calm"
I mean freak the beejesus out of. Who would want to hold debt backed only by the
debtor's own printing press? Only Federal Reserve would, not any reasonable investor.

[Igel]

73. He could just raise taxes.

The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about raising the debt limit. Just not questioning the debt. That's taken to mean there's a Constitutional requirement to pay the debt. If we say it applies to the executive branch and forget section 5 of that amendment, it means the executive branch needs money.

There's not a Constitutional requirement to find revenues to pay the debt. Treasury could just print money. Let's assume Obama would wants to use revenues. Borrowing is one source of revenue. Revenue sources are under Article I section 8 of the Constitution

If a budget grants implicit authority for Article I section 8 revenue raising, there's no reason to think it applies just to borrowing. Obama wants a tax increase. Let him set the tax rates himself, unilaterally. I'm sure the Senate will back him up.

Then no problem with the bond markets doubting the validity of the debt issuance. The rates increase, employers take the money out, and if nobody likes it there's the IRS, which is clearly an executive function under Obama's control.

Can't think of a downside to having the President usurp Congress' powers. Who needs Congress when you're the commander in chief?

[Fool Count]

79. Why not just dissolve Congress and declare himself an Emperor then?

I mean, it's all to save the country, isn't it? There must be some constitutional amendment that allows it.
Surely, he couldn't be impeached by the dissolved Congress. Everything will become so much easier and more
efficient. That would surely calm the markets.

[MrModerate]

98. Let's not and say we did . . . n/t

[No Elephants]

130. Teddy Roosevelt, is that you?

We haven't been "nailed to a cross of gold" or silver for quite a while now.

What do you think every U.S. dollar is back by nowadays?

[avaistheone1]

9. Check out: "U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade Looking Likely Even If Debt Ceiling Deal Is Reached"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4937614


I don't think we want another Wall Street Ponzi scheme to hoodwink us once again. This is pretty much what this false debt ceiling crisis is. Heavens Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times and where was the fuss from Wall Street and the Republicons?!!

[truedelphi]

45. Will check it out.

Funny how all these financial market people never show us the results we are told will be the result of the actions that they insist on our government taking.

I mean, where did the job creation go? Over nine to thirty trillion bucks went out the door from Bernanke to The Big Banks, and yet few jobs in the USA.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[klook]

152. Exactly. The credit-rating agencies are the same crooks

who rated the riverboat gamblers ruining the mortgage industry as AAA.

And now we're supposed to follow them off another cliff?

[harun]

13. The financial markets don't need calming. They know there will not

be a default, and anyone else who understands these things knows it as well.

This fake crisis is to shock doctrine the sheeple, the pro's know what is really going on.

[yodermon]

18. I'm not so sure. The Teabagger caucus has gone off the deep end

even their corporate overlords aren't going to be able to get them to vote for a debt ceiling increase.

They are true-believing, bat-shit crazy political terrorists. The Corporocrats unleashed them, but knew not what they wrought.

[hugo_from_TN]

24. There will not be a default even if the debt limit isn't raised

The 14th amendment means that the bond holders are the first one paid out of all the funds still coming in. Something else will be cut.

[renegade2011]

66. You think the plutocrats are REALLY that dumb?

And to think, if the last century of "Progressives" had only realized that all it would take to blow the guts out of corporate oligarchy was a bunch of half-literate weirdos with misspelled signs! (/sarcasm)

The powers-that-be really CAN NOT risk any genuine "shocks to the system". the Social safety-net and military-industrial complex are *much* too deeply embedded into the rest of the global economy for them to actually permit the Teabaggers to continue running amok. Remember: just because the Dems aren't (quite as) blatantly pro-corporate, Barrack & Pals aren't Che Guevera (Teabagger "Kenyan Usurper socialist" talking-points notwithstanding). He saved their asses ONCE already with the stimulus: backing him on the 14th Amendment would be the PERFECT way to neutralize the Teabaggers before they can do any real damage to the corporate oligarchy.

[No Elephants]

131. The Constitution does not require a vote on the debt ceiling. It does, however, require

that the obligations of the U.S. be paid, period, and the SCOTUS has said Congress has no power to vote otherwise. Perry v. U.S.

[Auntie Bush]

52. I read somewhere and understood that the 14th amendment gave the president

the right to invoke the amendment only AFTER the economy had already tanked and it was to be used to save it our economy from destruction...not to just OK the debt ceiling.

[renegade2011]

63. You read that "somewhere?"

Actual specifics would be kinda useful. :)

[Auntie Bush]

68. Yes, they would be kind of useful if I could remember where. All I

remember is someone on DU posted the amendment and the interpretation was discussed. If you really want to know for sure maybe you can Google it or search DU. I don't know how. :) It would be useful to know for sure.

[renegade2011]

78. Umm... you seriously don't know how to use Google?

Really?

I'm really trying to understand how even the most basic usage of a search-engine can be beyond your grasp, when you're obviously capable of posting to a discussion-forum.

Let me help you:

1. Go to www.google.com
2. Type in "14th Amendment" "Default" (WITH the quotes)
You will most likely get back a plethora of sites -- some advocating the legality of the 14th Amendment solution, and some not doing so.

As to "searching DU", that's actually pretty easy:

3. Go back to www.google.com
4. Use the same quote-delineated text, but follow it with site:www.democraticunderground.com (WITHOUT quotes).

Alternatively, you could just click on "advanced search" on Google's main page, and type www.democraticunderground.com where it says something like "only show results from the following domain or address".

This stuff is *really* not that hard, people.

[Auntie Bush]

99. Actually I do know how but was too lazy. I didn't have to search for what I remembered.

If you had doubts...you can look it up. I was sort of trying not to be sarcastic.

But everyone that doesn't have those skills will find your directions very helpful. In fact I hate to admit it but I did too...so thanks anyway, but next time you want to be informative...don't be so condescending! Thanks in advance.

[renegade2011]

101. I wasn't "condescending":

Let's see here:

1. mumble some vaguery about "kinda remembering something", but claim you can't find it because you can't figure out how to Google for it/use Google to search DU.

2. Have Google usage explained to you (rather patiently and thoroughly).

3. Attempt to ret-con your earlier statement, claiming you DID know how to use google/search DU, but were just "too lazy".

4. Accuse the guy HELPING YOU, of being "condescending".

Good job! :)

(Suddenly, last November makes MUCH more sense!) :(

[Igel]

75. It was an argument from expediency.

If there's an economic problem, screw the Constitution. The economy comes first.

I think that set a rather low bar for suspension of parts of the Constitution and declaration of partial martial law. Then again, most people say they like democracy, but when push comes to shove they'd prefer a dictatorship that didn't affect them too much as long as they got their hamburgers and could watch cable. Democracy has come to be a luxury not worth sacrificing for. Or, rather, only worth sacrificing others for.

[renegade2011]

81. Hmm....

You mean, like the "send a message: don't vote" crowd?

As to the "partial martial-law" thing, they'd basically have to do it in the event not just of a default, but any genuinely serious shock to the Status Quo. Really, what do YOU think is going to happen when those Gun-lovin' Teabaggers don't get their Social Security/VA benefits, and can't afford to buy food or meds to allow them to survive?
(Hint: THEIR side coined the phrase "Second-Amendment Solutions").

The "partial martial law" angle also depends on the *active* military being willing to actually be mobilized to suppress insurrection (as opposed to, say, deciding to JOIN IN because they knew at least *some* of who'd fucked them over). Go ahead: try to tell me I'm wrong. Try to tell me those military folk who'd be in charge of "suppressing insurrection" would not *also* have friends/family-members being imperiled due to their "entitlement" checks not arriving in a timely fashion.
THIS is why every poll says that even the most Teabaggin' of the 'Baggers does NOT want Social Security/Medicare/VA benefits screwed with in any excessively radical fashion.
You KNOW I'm right, here.

[No Elephants]

133. We screw the Constitution when we don't obey the 14th amendment, as interpreted by the SCOTUS.

Not when we honor it.

[99th_Monkey]

121. Seems like a good fit to me

√ economy tanked (check)
√ need to save it from being totally destroyed (check)

How is this NOT exactly what is happening?

[No Elephants]

124. If you read it, it was only someone's theory. Plenty of other scholars say the opposite.

[No Elephants]

129. No, it isn't a macro to summarize mechanisms. It's used per the dictionary

definition of "invoke." He says, "Under the 14th amendment, as interpreted by the SCOTUS in Perry v. United States AND my own Consteitutional duties, I have no choice but to pay the obligations of the United States the Executive Branch of the Government incurred pursuant to laws duly enacted by Congress." And then he pays the bills, same way his branch of government always pays the bills.

I know his Constitutional powers to do this have been explained on this forum a number of times, some by me. Sorry you haven't seen those posts, but there's only so many times posters are going to keepexplaining it.

You can google prior posts or you can read for yourself Article II of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Constitutionally required oath of office the President takes when he or she is inaugurated, Perry v. United States and maybe also some wikis on those topics.

[AC_Mem]

5. President has access to the best lawyers in the country

Find out Mr. President, and then do it. I think that in the case of an emergency such as this, the President of the United States should be able to what needs to be done - if congress refuses to find a solution.

This crap needs to END. And the President needs to look like a strong leader. He has tried compromise, has bent over backwards and sideways and given the republicans everything they wanted and more. Nothing will work - NOTHING.

They will never help him run this country. We need to really wake up to the fact that they will let us be destroyed before they will do what is necessary when it comes to President Obama.

They would never do this if it were a republican president.

I'm sickened by them.

Annette www.barackobama.com - PLEASE GO AND VOLUNTEER. WE NEED YOUR ENERGY LOCALLY.

[thereismore]

8. One President rapes Magna Carta and doesn't get a slap on the wrist. This one

decides to save the country and gets impeached? That would not happen.

[demwing]

11. Not with Democratic House

Which is why we need to put all of our collective efforts into flipping the House in 2012.

We say we want demand side economics, let's start with demand side politics. Take the house, let the Progressives trickle up.

[No Elephants]

134. Dems are going to flip nothing more than pancakes at IHOP if this President keeps

backing down--or pretending that is what he is doing.

[harun]

10. He should use 14th Amendment. Show em who's in charge.

[Kingofalldems]

12. K and R ---freepers would go nuts over this---Hahahahaha

[Liberalynn]

60. That alone is reason enough to do it

:thumbsup: Not to mention all the really serious issues.

[Tippy]

15. I would like to see Obama do this but

They would immediately begin impeachment proceedings...

[murielm99]

17. Again, I am not sure they can do this.

Let them begin impeachment proceedings. They will be accused of trying to impeach every time we elect a Democratic President. They did it the last time we elected a Democrat: Clinton.

And I can't see them trying to impeach our first black President. There is enormous pride over his election in black communities all over the country. Washington D.C. is a majority black city. Do they want chaos in the streets? There could be demonstrations that the media could not ignore. They could get ugly.

Do they want to make a martyr of this President? If they are stupid enough to do it, they will bring down their party.

Let them yell and cry. Let the freepers go nuts and the teabaggers devour their own. They brought this on the country, and they own it.

[mittysmom09]

23. I'm not sure whose party it will bring down

after all the republicons are mostly white, so I don't think it will affect them as much as the democrats, why? because there would be nothing better than to have chaos in the streets for the republicans, after all they rule the congress, and the massive corporate money going into propoganda to quell the violence, the calling out of the national guard and the military, all of it would be right up the republicons alley. they would love for mass disruption in this country so they could take it over. Look at all the right wingers in the military, to say nothing of the influence of them in police departments etc.

[FogerRox]

88. Yeah, ya dont want to go to that well to often

[renegade2011]

71. LET THEM!

You need to remember something:
This isn't the clinton bullshit, folks. Obama is the First African-American president. In addition, this wouldn't be because he lied about getting a BJ off some clerk. This would amount to a BLATANTLY OBVIOUS witch-hunt, cooked up by the Teabaggers (who can't even be bothered to hide their racism in the wake of the birther bullshit, and couldn't even manage to get their own dumb-ass "base" to stop making signs portraying Obama as a witch-doctor with a bone through his nose back during the healthcare reform mess. You *really* think what amounts to a political lynching would play well, in terms of (urgently needed) GOP "outreach" to non-whites? Remember: their current "base" (elderly, racist, reactionary White males) is rapidly being overtaken by a serious demographic shift. Michael Steele's half-witted attempts to "hip-hoppify" the Republican party should tell you that. Hell, even the TEABAGGERS have found it necessary to trot out a token specimen or two (Herman Cain comes to mind).

Any attempt at impeachment (even if Obama somehow came out on the nominally "losing" end of it) would be EXTREMELY unwise, politically. Teabaggers may be stupid enough to attempt it, but given the problems that Boner is having controlling them enough to even get a vote, it's vanishingly unlikely that he -- or anybody else who passes for "moderate" Republicans -- let alone the strategists behind the scenes -- would allow it to go forward.

The demography has changed since the Clinton fiasco.

[RobinA]

100. Impeach Away

They blunted that sword into irrelevance the last time they tried it.

[avaistheone1]

237. The republicans made fools of themselves then.

Pretty much everyone has come to that conclusion now.

[No Elephants]

135. Is that what your crystal ball promised?

Given impeachment of Clinton raised the approval ratings of Clinton and Democrats considerably, while those of Congressional Republicans went down, I very much doubt they would repeat that particular folly. And Clinton was caught with his pants down, literally, not caught trying to obey the 14th amendment and stave off economic collapse.

However, if they do, so be it.

Dems, including us, have to stop fearing bullying so much that we give into it preemptively. That's how WE hand political terrorists their victories.

[lumberjack_jeff]

184. They're Republicans. That's what they do. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

19. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that gives the

president the power to borrow money without the consent of Congress. There's nothing in the 14th Amendment about not having enough money to pay off debts. All there is is a requirement that the VALIDITY of the public debt shall not be questioned. That means Congress can't cancel debts by declaring they don't owe the money anymore. Nobody is talking about anything like that.

If the 14th Amendment did require that the government take action to pay off debts on time, the responsibility would fall to Congress, not the president.

Its frightening that so many powerful people are advocating acting on an absurd interpretation. If Obama tried to incur debt without authorization, the people who would be tasked to carry out the orders would likely refuse, because they could go to jail. Any investor who bought the bonds would be taking an enormous risk. A past case out of DC held that bonds that are not lawfully drafted don't have to be paid. Anybody who bought the bonds would want a staggering interest rate to make the risk worthwhile.

Then Obama would be impeached, the public would be right behind it because it would come out that Obama's actions were illegal. Obama would be convicted, and he'd deserve it.

Responsible leaders on the left shouldn't feed the 14th Amendment hoax.

[Stuckinthebush]

22. Creeksneakers2 is right about this

It is a mighty stretch of the 14th to say that the President can execute an executive order to raise the debt ceiling. Sure, he can do it and let it go to the courts but they would rightly overturn his executive order. Congress is the body that MUST do this. From a political angle we just have to scream long and hard that it was congress, not the president, that didn't do their job.

[No Elephants]

132. Um,. no Creeksneakers is not. Saying something does not make it so, whether

Creekssneakers says it or you say it or Obama says it.

You claim the 14th amendment is a mighty stretch. Oh, really? Care to give your legal authority for that? How about even only your reasoning and analysis?

[Stuckinthebush]

168. Wake up on the jerk side of the bed?

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer so I have no worthwhile opinion. Your opinion, on the other hand, is extremely valid I'm sure.

My reasoning is similar to Creeksneakers. The wording is rather clear, don't you think? Hence my agreement with the poster.

What is it with DU these days? You can't throw a rock without hitting a jerk.

[ieoeja]

197. Like you, I disagree with the 14th interpretation. However, I do believe the President has implicit

... permission to borrow the money.

1. Congress passed a budget.
2. Congress did not provide revenue for executing said budget.
3. Nonetheless, the President required under the Constitution to execute the budget.

It is my opinion that the budget implicitly authorizes borrowing since it requires spending without money.

[sulphurdunn]

31. Failure to pay a debt within

a scheduled time frame is to default on that debt. What you are suggesting is that Congress can choose not to pay its creditors but still claim its obligations are valid and will be paid at some future date. That won't work becasue the government has the ability to pay its debts under their negotiated terms and does not need to even renegotiate them. Furthermore, the XIV Amendment makes it clear that Congress has no constitutional authority to willfully default on the national debt.

Should Congress refuse to meet its constitution responsibilities it would be the duty of the President to exercise his oath of office even if it meant calling out the armed forces to suppress insurrection, declaring martial law, suspending habeas corpus and throwing the entire Republican Congress and four or five members of the Supreme Court into the brig at Quantico.

Yes, Virginia. It is fast coming to that.

[creeksneakers2]

37. The remedy for late payment

would be to sue through the judicial branch for payment. The judicial branch couldn't order taxes raised or money borrowed.

Congress doesn't need authority to default. It would take a prohibition against default to change anything.

Its not the duty of the president to break the law when he feels Congress isn't doing its job.

Presidents can't suspend Habeas Corpus. That power belongs to Congress. Read Article One.

[sulphurdunn]

54. The Constitution has been

in the toilet since Bush v. Gore. Under the terms of our New World Order, the President or his surrogates can declare any American an enemy combatant or a domestic terrorist and lock him away sans habeas corpus. George Bush had the time of his twisted little life doing just that before Congress legitimized his behavior with the Military Commissions Act. We're way beyond being a constitutional republic and I doubt restoration is possible by constitutional means. Since you still aspire to the rule of law, please read:

Article 1, section 8 and Amendment XIV to the Constitution of the United States.

Your argument is predicated upon the assumption that Congress can refuse to govern, use its authority to cripple the government, harm the country and still retain its constitutional powers. I disagree.

[creeksneakers2]

223. Its only your opinion that Congress is refusing to govern, etc.

Its up to our elected representitives to decide what's best for the country. Just because you disagree with the results does not mean that Congress must be dissolved.

[izquierdista]

69. Good last line.

It tells us where you've been the last decade and how useful your opinion is.

[creeksneakers2]

108. I don't know what you are talking about

[No Elephants]

136. The 14th amendment IS a prohibition against default. Perry v. U.S.

There is no valid law the President would be breaking. The SCOTUS has said Congress is without power to enact a law that results in non=payment of the obligations of the U.S.

Habeas Corpus? What does that have to do with the U.S. defaulting on its obligations in violation of the 14th amendment?

[creeksneakers2]

225. I brought up Habeas Corpus in response to another poster

who raised the claim first.

There would be no end to the charges a prosecutor could come up with if Obama tried to sell bonds when he lacks the authority.

Congress hasn't passed a law that results in non-payment. They just haven't come up with the money needed to pay.

[Chan790]

226. This is an interesting point:

Congress hasn't passed a law that results in non-payment. They just haven't come up with the money needed to pay.

Presumably, even you agree they can be compelled to. By what means do you suggest, if not the 14 argument?

[creeksneakers2]

227. I don't know how they could be forced

to raise the debt limit. Some problems just don't have a remedy. The drafters of the Constitution couldn't think of everything.

I guess the bills don't get paid,creditors sue and win, but can't collect until Congress does something. It would fall to the people to elect a new Congress.

[Hoopla Phil]

36. This is correct. The constitution is clear on which branch of government can

incur debt. The executive is not it.

[murielm99]

115. The debt has already ben incurred - by the Congress.

Obama is simply trying to find a way to get already approved bills paid.

[Hoopla Phil]

175. If that is the case you are correct. But then why are people advocating for RAISING the

amount of debt by Executive action? Only congress has that power.

[No Elephants]

137. The debt has already been incurred. Payment of debt is the job of the Executive.

That's why God made the Dept of Treasury.

[Hoopla Phil]

176. See post 175 above.

[Cool Logic]

200. The only debt that "has already been incurred,"

is represented by the bonds the Treasury has issued. If the bonds haven't been issued, the money has not been borrowed. It's really no more complicated than that.

[Chan790]

215. For the hundredth time...

Congressional bills are "obligations-to-fund"...they're indebted expenditures. Debt. Congress may not act to refuse to fund them by refusing to assume loans for them, without voting to remove funding. So absent any debt-ceiling bill which removes funding...they're debts the President is empowered to act to insure payment of and which Congress may not question.

(You don't understand something as simple as "Things you've bought and not yet paid for are debts", really?)

[creeksneakers2]

216. I don't know where you are getting this idea from

Do you have a law to cite? If you're right, why do they ever vote on taxes or borrowing?

I could get a credit card and buy a boat, but that wouldn't mean I have the money to pay for it. That's a separate issue.

[Chan790]

222. There are several questions there.

1.) "Legislation as 'Obligations-to-fund'" goes back to the Barbary Wars and I'm not going that far back to find citations, they're probably not even online. This isn't the first Congress to try this shit, pass legislation then decide they're not paying for it.

2.) They vote on taxes and borrowing because they're empowered to decide how to pay for legislation...but not to decide they're not going to pay for something. (That's the rote 14th amendment citation and you don't need me to repeat it...we all know it.)

[creeksneakers2]

235. I agree that its unconstitutional for Congress to refuse to pay

It doesn't follow from that that the president is therefore empowered to borrow money without authorizaton.

I'm very interested in "legislation as obligations to fund. I've searched for the topic on the web and and findlaw but can't come up with anything. I checked the Barbary Wars and saw that Jefferson refused to pay tribute money Congress authorized, but that's a case of the executive not paying, not Congress refusing to fund.


Yes, its up to Congess to decide HOW to pay. Its not up to the president.

I understand why you wouldn't want to research your point for me. Do you have any search terms that I could use?

[Cool Logic]

221. Borrowing money in order to spend it...

requires two separate transactions. Thus, spending and borrowing are separate and apart from one another.

Spending and borrowing are separated in section 7, and section 8, making it necessary to draft separate legislation, conduct a separate vote, and a ultimately, a separate signing by the President.

The President does not have the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States. Read, comprehend and reason.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

Clause 2 - To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

[Chan790]

224. We grasp you understand 8th grade civics...

and can quote the Constitution. It still doesn't make you right, you originalist antagonist.

The Constitution is an interpreted document, not a static one. The grounds are strong, at-least 50/50, that such a challenge would stand-up.

[Cool Logic]

228. Indeed, it is something that an 8th grader should understand.

The Constitution is an interpreted document, not a static one.

What you are advocating is, "legislating from the bench..." Also known as, changing the rules in the middle of the game.

A legal system that is not based on objectively valid principles, is based on the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts. It is arbitrary, irrational, and blindly emotional.

Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. She is not supposed to be emotional.

Not a static one as it relates to the Constitution, is an attachment we call an Amendment.

Rewriting what has already been published, ratified and signed into law, is not permitted. Please see the 21st Amendment, which was published, ratified and signed into law to repeal the 18th Amendment.

I understand that it is possible for the SC to "construct" anything; after all, they did "construct" Plessy v. Ferguson. However, in order to do so, the were forced delegate to themselves some sort of undefined mystical powers, that allowed them to traverse beyond the boundaries of reason and into the realm of the supernatural.

[Chan790]

229. No.

It's not a literal document, it is meant to be interpreted by the judiciary. That has nothing to do with amendments, it has to do with judicial review. Laws are passed or actions are taken, then the judiciary weighs in on whether they were constitutional.

Judicial review is the correct and appropriate means to, as you put it, (change) the rules in the middle of the game.

What's better is that it's perfectly acceptable and allowable to do so.

[Cool Logic]

231. "it's perfectly acceptable and allowable to do so"

The American system of checks and balances was designed to prohibit the very thing you are advocating.

As I previously stated, a legal system that is not based on objectively valid principles, is arbitrary, irrational, emotional.

Our system was meant to keep the three branches in balance. What you have described, it is not a legal system at all; rather, it is a criminal enterprise that permits the majority to rule based on passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

[neoralme]

41. That is your interpretation or those you are consulting with. It is NOT

the interpretation of many learned constitutional attorneys, who know the president would be challenged, but may well win that challenge. And if he did not, the Supremes would bring ridicule upon themselves that they would never live down.

[AlbertCat]

51. the Supremes would bring ridicule upon themselves that they would never live down.

You mean like the 2000 "selection"?


:eyes:


You forget... shame is dead.

[neoralme]

91. Worse than that. This decision will affect older Americans, who

usually vote, in their pocketbooks. The "selection" got a jerk in office who went on to be the worse President ever...temporarily. A new one is waiting in the wings.

[creeksneakers2]

109. Do you have a link to any opinions by learned Constitutional

attorneys?

[neoralme]

110. No, because when I saw those links I was not arguing with

someone over their efficacy.

[No Elephants]

138. Do you have links for the Constitutional opinions you've been posting?

There are 9 Consteitutional scholars on the SCOTUS, each of whom has law clerks and a stafff. They disagree with each other all the time about what the Constitution means.

Right now, we have a 1935 SCOTUS case that says the 14th amendment requires the U.S. to pay obligations it has incurred prior to previous acts of Congress and Congress is without power to prevent payment of those obligations.

Could one Constitutional lawyer argue that the case does not apply? Probably. Could another argue that it does? Equally likely.

So what?

There is plenty in the Constitution and in Perry v. U.S. to support Obama's paying the bills of the U.S. If he pays them pursuant to those and someone objects, so what?

[creeksneakers2]

217. There is nothing in the case that says the president can borrow

money without the authorization of Congress. Your case might apply if Congress was telling Obama not to pay the bills. They aren't telling him that. They just aren't giving him the money to pay them. Two separate issues.

[Cool Logic]

207. It is regrettable to say, but if the President endeavored to usurp Congressional jurisdiction

from the Congress, it stands to reason that he would face impeachment.

[MrNJ]

65. the President agrees

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/07/27/democrats_say_obama_should_invoke_14th_amendment/

White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked about Clyburn’s proposal, said only Congress has the authority to extend the government’s borrowing authority. “The president does not have authority to raise the debt ceiling. It’s not a plausible way to address this problem and we do not think it is an option,” he said....

[AlbertCat]

90. the President agrees

I like this position because it puts it back in Congress' lap. Congress makes laws and does more than the Prez and people need to be looking to them to get something done. The Repugs do nothing! In this finger-pointing atmosphere they themselves created, the blame needs to be squarely put on them. The GOP is in charge... it's gonna be their fault. They can't spin this enough to escape.

[neoralme]

111. So grandma eats Friskies for two years because it was the

Republican's fault. Yeah. Great deal.

[No Elephants]

140. Don't assume Grandma can afford Friskies. Remember, her home heating fuel subsidy is another goner.

And she hasn't received a COLA in two or three years.

Plus, cost of food is not calculated in the COLA because it's considered too volatile. (Hey, any excuse suffices for the death panels.)

And the price of pet food went up when the free market learned long ago that seniors who did not own a cat were emptying the cat food shelves. Supply and demand, and all that, you know.

[neoralme]

159. I have a hunch that in the end you will be one of the ones on the

barricades. Like me. I am now wondering whether the SS checks will restart once they are stopped, either now or down the road.

[No Elephants]

139. What a surprise! LOL

[bvar22]

160. The President finds lawyers to OK whatever he wants, just like Bush the Lesser.

Just last month,
President Obama found Lawyers who said it was A-OK for him to wage a New WAR in Libya without Congressional Approval.

It is better to try and fail
than to NOT try because somebody might say "No".

DO It (raise the Debt Ceiling),
and let the chips fall where they may.
THAT is better politics.
Let someone else say NO,
and then attack THEM by bringing your case to The People.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[Samantha]

114. I think the impeachment proceedings would start immediately BUT

the debt limit ceiling is unconstitutional because a Federal law does not supersede the Constitution. Any Federal law or treaty that is passed which does not comport with the literal Constitution is automatically null and void. Does that mean Congress has not passed Federal laws that do just that? Of course not.

But the literal truth still stands that the Executive Branch does not have the authority to decide the Constitutionality of a law, the Supreme Court does. And there is nothing the Republicans would like better than to have Obama tied up in defending this act while he needs to be out campaigning for re-election. And it could go against him at the Supreme Court by 5-4 if Clarence Thomas has not been forced to resign by the time it has been heard.

But Obama is not trying to incur debt without authorization, he is simply paying the debt previously approved by Congress itself and the debt limit will automatically raise as a consequence, provided he has not issued that Executive Order refusing to comply with it because of its unconstitutionality.

Here is some quoted authority from a recent thread I researched on this subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1104652&mesg_id=1105631

Treaties are automatically void if they violate the literal Constitution

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/American...

"(a) Treaties

The Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." It is controlling as to all officials of the three Branches of the Federal government--Executive, Legislative and Judicial--with regard to all of their pronouncements, actions, decisions, agreements and legislative Acts. Each of them is sworn, by oath of office, to support the Constitution only. To be valid, any treaty must be strictly in conformity to--free from any conflict with--the Constitution. A treaty is like a Federal law in this respect.

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void
to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." (emphasis supplied.)

Just my humble opinion. I am going to state up front I am not prepared to argue to the death over this because as Jonathan Turley pointed out on Countdown recently, the language is perfectly clear the debt incurred has to be paid but the issue has never been tried, that issue being whether the President can order a Federal law overturned. And while many are citing Truman's Executive Order as an example, Truman dealt with a Civil Rights issue not an economic one.

President Obama would be running a huge risk, but I think he just might be prepared to take it simply because he does not want to see the economy placed in further danger, and if saving it means he becomes a one-term President, he could accept it.

Sam

[creeksneakers2]

117. Your opinion assumes that the Constitution gives the

president the authority to borrow money on his own and the debt limit is unlawfully stopping him. But, the president doesn't have that authority in the first place. The power to borrow money is vested in Congress under Article 1 of the Constitution.

If a car loan company agrees to lend you $20,000 to buy a car, you can't turn around and use their authorization to borrow $40,000 for a better car. Its not that the car loan company limited all your credit. Its that they only authorized $20,000, so that all you can borrow based on that. You can call that a ceiling if you want to, but its really just the limit of what they agreed to lend you.

Congress authorized borrowing $14.3 trillion. Above that, there is no authorization. Therefore, the president does not have the authority to borrow more.

[Samantha]

172. That might be the way YOU read it; that is not the way it was written

[creeksneakers2]

218. Its right there in Articles One and Two.

[Veracious]

120. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the Unite

Not paying debt IS in all essence canceling them

[creeksneakers2]

219. No

Its just paying them late.

[lumberjack_jeff]

187. Congress is preparing fallback legislation prioritizing expenditures.

Their list of priority expenditures > revenues. Even their contingency plans implicitly assume debt default.

Congress intends to violate the 14th amendment. They don't want to pay creditors first in event of failure to raise the debt limit.

I'd do what Bill C suggests, order the treasury to continue selling securities and let the courts sort it out.

[buddysmellgood]

20. He went to war without congress, why not raise the debt limit.

[creeksneakers2]

26. He got away with going to war without Congress

He wouldn't get away with raising the debt ceiling.

[Taft_Bathtub]

21. He can't gut social security with the 14th Amendment

Which is the whole point of him having this debt charade anyways.

[Demeter]

30. We Have a Winner!

Exactly. Stop the games and get on with it.

[Divernan]

49. He wants to gut it SO bad, and the nasty GOP won't go along with it.

[dana_b]

25. yes - it needs to be done

I will call today for that move.

[russspeakeasy]

27. Just suck it up and do it....

[Cool Logic]

28. Why would they encourage him to do something that is blatantly un-Constitutional?

I don't know who invented the idea that the Executive branch has the the unilateral power to borrow, but they are just as wrong about that as they are about the possibility of a default.

If they White House thought they could sell it, they would do it. However, they lack the mystical powers that are required
to traverse beyond the boundaries of reason and into the realm of the supernatural.

[sulphurdunn]

35. What is blatantly unconstiutional

is for Congress to willfully and needlessly default on the national debt. The President has the responsibility not to permit that.

[Cool Logic]

92. It is un-Constitutional to default. That is why it will not happen.

Default, as it applies the US Treasury, would entail not paying the interest on the bonds it issues, or paying off the bonds that have reached maturity. These are the public debts that "shall not be questioned," pursuant to the 14th.

The President has a responsibility to work with the Congress to resolve this matter; however, he does not have the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

Clause 2 - To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

[Fool Count]

103. That depends on what does "not paying" mean.

In general, default does not involve "not paying ever" which would mean "unconditionally refusing to pay" and could be considered "questioning"
mentioned in the 14th amendment. Usually, default means "not paying now" which implies temporary inability to pay without "questioning"
legality of the debt. Most defaults lead to re-negotiation/re-scheduling of the debt and interest payments without ever "questioning" them.
Do people really not understand the difference here? Consider a person who is hopelessly in debt. He can "question" the debt in court by
claiming that it is invalid and should be dismissed. Or he can file for bankruptcy, acknowledging the debt's legality and seeking to re-negotiate/
re-schedule/discharge the debt by mutual agreement with his creditors. That is "questioning" which is unconstitutional, default is not.

[No Elephants]

142. See Perry v. U.S. Not paying obligations violated the 14th amendment.

Where are you getting support for your assertions?

[Fool Count]

161. Did you even read Perry vs US yourself?

There US Government actually explicitly refused to pay its obligation. How is it even
remotely similar to possible future default? Who is refusing or "questioning" any part
of USG's debt now? Nobody. My assertions are supported by reality and common sense,
as well as by soon to be obvious to everyone rejection of this ridiculous 14th amendment
option by all relevant parties, and most importantly by President Obama himself and his
advisers. Where do you get support for your fanciful fantasies? You and other 14th amendment
cultists better give it a rest, it is not happening. That is a promise, you can take that
to the bank. No need for pointless arguing, we will know for sure in less than a week.
Of course, I already know it. You may savor your delusions for five more days. Enjoy them
while they last but be ready to get disappointed.

[sulphurdunn]

186. I did.

The case regarded a Gold Liberty Bond holders demand to redeem his investment in gold coin, or the equivalent in paper dollars before gold was devalued by an act of Congress. The Court concluded that the plaintiff had suffered no loss becasue the value of his investment had not actually declined and that to pay him in gold would have permitted him to realize an unearned profit.

Here is the part of the decision which refers to Congress's financial obligations under the Constitution. It clearly states unequivocally that Congress has no authority to even postpone payment of the governments debts.

* There is a clear distinction between the power of Congress to control or interdict the contracts of private parties when they interfere with the exercise of its constitutional authority and a power in Congress to alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements when it has borrowed money under its constitutional authority. P. 294 U. S. 350.

* By virtue of the power to borrow money "on the credit of the United States," Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as assurance of payment as stipulated -- as the highest assurance the Government can give -- its plighted faith. To say that Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise, a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. P. 294 U. S. 351.

* When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. P. 294 U. S. 352.

* The right to make binding obligations is a power of sovereignty. P. 294 U. S. 353.

* The sovereignty of the United States resides in the people, and Congress cannot invoke the sovereignty of the people to override their will as declared in the Constitution. P. 294 U. S. 353.

* The power given Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States is unqualified and vital to the Government, and the binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit pledged. P. 294 U. S. 353.

If anyone is laboring under delusions here it's you.

[Fool Count]

204. As I said, enjoy your delusions for four more days.

My opinions, on the other hand, are to be validated by reality within the same time frame.
That is the one argument that will be resolved conclusively very soon. And when it is,
give yourself an "I told you so" on my behalf.

[Cool Logic]

199. Perry v. U.S. has nothing to do with this matter.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that on May 1, 1933, the day the government looted the People's gold, they were compensated at the rate of $20+/oz. Today, gold trades for $1,600+/oz.

Perhaps the government should consider paying reparations to the tune of $1,580 for every ounce of gold it looted from the People.

[Fool Count]

205. Indeed, it doesn't. As to the looted gold, the People will be

well advised to wait out the upcoming massive depreciation of the dollar before
bringing that lawsuit up.

[Cool Logic]

208. Point taken...even so, the protracted nature of such an action would likely

account for that waiting period.

These folks want theirs returned. However, it appears that they should go after Britain and France first.

http://asbarez.com/94283/lawsuit-against-us-federal-reserve-seeks-armenian-gold-looted-by-turkey/

[Cool Logic]

198. Fortunately, there is no need to split the hairs of the Constitution to discover its meaning.

While some may question the meaning of the word "is," there is no need to question the meaning of the word "pay," as it relates to the US Treasury.

Usually, default means is an undefined and inapplicable term; however, the Constitution is abundantly clear. To avoid default, the US Treasury must meet its obligations pursuant to the terms of the bonds it has issued. And the bonds represent the money Congress has borrowed "on the credit of the United States."

The US Treasury is not like some mathematically challenged individual who is hopelessly in debt, and intends to file for bankruptcy in an effort to stick someone else with the bill. Rather than reacting immorally to matters of debt, the US Treasury is legally bound to conduct itself in an honorable manner and meet its obligations.

[Fool Count]

212. As a matter of fact, it is far from clear what "pay" means.

It may mean "pay immediately and on time" or it could mean "pay eventually". Where exactly does the Constitution make it "abundantly" clear
that US Treasury "must" avoid default? Certainly, not in the 14th amendment as a reasonable person would read it. In any case, it is up to
the party not satisfied with how they were "paid" by the US government to bring their grievance before the court, and up to the court to
decide how legal and constitutional the payment modality in question was.

[Cool Logic]

214. What then, do the terms (verbiage) of the bonds define?

[Fool Count]

220. Obviously, they define the conditions of repayment.

However, those terms are not a part of US Constitution, so violating them does not necessarily mean violating the Constitution.
Surely, in some cases it might mean that. But there also could be cases when one may violate the terms of the bonds
without violating the Constitution. Ultimately it's up to the courts to decide. Come to think about it, the bond terms
themselves could be unconstitutional. Or rather, the courts may decide that they are.

[Cool Logic]

230. Are you are suggesting that Congress' power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States,"

does not require Congress to meet the terms and conditions of the borrowing?

If so, it stands to reason that you have concluded that the "public debt" can indeed, be questioned.

[Fool Count]

233. No, it is not my conclusion at all. That would directly contradict

the 14th amendment, which clearly states that public debt cannot be "questioned". It is also quite clear that Congress' power to
"borrow money on the credit of the United States" does not directly require Congress to "meet the terms and conditions of the borrowing",
otherwise there would be no need for the 14th amendment. But neither does the 14th amendment itself. Not every, however slight or mutually
agreed, modification to any condition on any bond amounts, in my opinion, to "questioning" of the debt, as you seem to suggest. In fact, one
can argue that only an explicit indefinite refusal to pay interest or principal due should constitute such "questioning". Again, that's just my
opinion, I could be wrong, but the only way to settle the issue would be a decision by the SCOTUS.

[Cool Logic]

239. It is still not clear to me how Congress would be able to modify the terms of the borrowing.

In response to the US Congress' authorization to borrow money, the US Treasury establishes terms and conditons based on maket conditons, and issues bonds to acquire the funds.

Given that Treasury is a deparment of the Executive Branch, how is it possible for the Legislative Branch to question a legally binding contract, that the Executive Branch has entered into with third partry borrowers? Would not that violate the very essence of the separation of powers? Additionally, I believe that questions related to the terms of the debt, represent a questioning of the debt itself. For the terms define the interest, and the interest is an element of the debt.

It wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong either. However, IMO, this is a fundamental question, with an automatic answer provided by Article 1, Section 8.

[Fool Count]

241. I have no idea of how they may handle it technically, but

principal and interest are not the only terms written into those bond contracts. There are also
repayment schedules and formulas for calculating adjustable interest rates (i.e. in TIPS). All of
those can, in principle, be modified. It need not be done unilaterally by Congress either. For
instance, Congress can direct the Treasury to re-negotiate the bonds with holders. Many bondholders
may agree to postpone all payments until after the 2012 election when a more responsible Congress
would raise the ceiling, in exchange for extra 0.5% in interest for example. If that is done
successfully, there is no way one could argue that mutually agreed upon term modifications constitute
"questioning" of the debt. Some holdout bondholders can always challenge those modifications in
court.

[No Elephants]

141. Yep. That's exactly what his oath of office says, and his oath is required by the Constitution, too

[Cool Logic]

203. Article 2 delegates Executive branch powers, and says nothing about borrowing authority.

The president is not a King and the 14th amendment was not intended to give the Executive branch the authority to usurp Congressional jurisdiction from the Congress.

[renegade2011]

74. Wait:

So NOW we stop blaming Obama for:

1. Not closing Gitmo via executive order or something (which a significant number of self-described "Progressives" were on about back then?)

2. Not immediately forcing a total, unilateral and IMMEDIATE pull-out of all military presence everywhere outside the United States borders. (The Iraq Withdrawal isn't "fast enough! I'm staying Home to send a message waaaaah!")

3. Not unilaterally ramming single-payer down Congress' collective throat?

Because IIRC, all of the above is shit that Obama gets blamed for "caving" on, when in FACT what happened, were those infamous "checks and balances" we keep hearing about.

I don't think that Obama "wants to gut the social safety-net", for the following reasons:

A. There are a huge amount of corporate money-grubber types who make out like BANDITS from social safety-net programs (same with the military-industrial complex, and banksters).

B. To paraphrase somebody or other "if the "welfare bum" didn't exist, it would be necessary for Right-wingers to invent him"." Social Security, Medicare, TANF, etc. etc. make for really convenient talking-points for Right-wing assholes. You *really* think those in power have learned NOTHING since the Gilded age? Desperate, angry people (even if they are inadequately armed) CAN do a hell of a lot against even the most technologically advanced and disciplined jack-booters.
They won't "gut the social safety-net" in any of our lifetimes, because then they'd have no further justification for their own power.

[Cool Logic]

93. For what...?

1. Gitmo is an example of a campaign slogan converging with reality.

2. I agree.

3. The President is not a King; thus, he does not have the authority to unilaterally ram single-payer, or anything else down Congress' collective throat.

A. I agree.

B. The will either "gut" it, or loot it, like they did with the SS trust fund.

[No Elephants]

143. The King or dictator meme does not work in this instance, or in most instances

where I've seen it used on this board. At least not when posters get real.

Paying the bills of the U.S., incurred pursuant to prior acts of Congress, as required by the Constitution is not ramming anything down the throat of Congress. Congress passes laws that cause the Executive to incur the bills. The Executive then incurs them. And, once incurred, they must be paid, per the 14th amend, as interpreted by the SCOTUS in Perry v. U.S.

[Cool Logic]

201. The mere passing of legislation does not entail the borrowing of money to pay for it.

The power to borrow is delegated to the Congress in Article 1; accordingly, the Congress must publish, ratify and have signed into law, legislation that authorizes the borrowing. Spending and borrowing are separate and apart, requiring separate legislation, separate votes, separate signings. Additionally, spending and borrowing are separated in section 7, and section 8.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[lumberjack_jeff]

188. Because it's right.

Requiring the President to unilaterally write a new operating budget with zero advance warning isn't constitutional either.

[Cool Logic]

202. Illegal is wrong.

[Myrina]

29. Cripes, that's all but a guarantee he won't do it ...

... if the GOP would ask him, however ...

[yawnmaster]

33. I'm sorry, but that is such a slippery slope. I don't want any president to have that kind of power

This type of power needs to be in congress and they are the ones that need to do it.

[bergie321]

34. The 14th Amendment

Only states that the President has the power to pay the bills previously passed by Congress. Congress still retains 100% of their power. The Debt limit is an arbitrary tool on Congress not the President.

[yawnmaster]

38. If he pays the bills with the money the govt has and doesn't need to borry any more...

then that is good. He can't borrow any more though, so it wouldn't raise the debt ceiling.
If he raises the debt limit, he is essentially borrowing money not authorized by congress - unconstitutional.
If he already has the money, then why raise the debt limit?

[No Elephants]

145. The 14th amendment does not say that in so many words. However, the Constitution as a whole does.

The executive branch carries out, or executes, laws passed by Congress. Hence, the Executive Branch cuts the checks to cover the obligations of the U.S., incurred by the U.S. pursuant to prior acts of Congress. And the 14th amendment says those obligations must be paid. So, who has the power AND the duty to cut the checks? The Executive Branch.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. Not a slippery slope.

This is a leap of a 100 story ledge. Only congress has this power - the constitution is VERY clear on this.

[yawnmaster]

42. Completely in agreement. eom

[No Elephants]

144. What are you talking about? Congress never had the power to cut checks. The Executive Branch has

always done it.

[Kokonoe]

39. Invoking the 14th amendment is another card in the Presidents deck.

Only if its legal?!!

[jwirr]

43. I agree but to do it legally it needs to be an emergency. He is riding

out the time. When the world is panicking enough to accept anything he will.

[yawnmaster]

46. The executive branch raising the debt limit is not legal at any time.

Only congress can borrow money; this is very clear.

[Divernan]

50. And you would be a USSC justice posting here?

Got a Supreme Court cite to back up your claim?

[yawnmaster]

53. Don't need one. eom

[Divernan]

72. Watching Law & Order does not get you a law degree.

Your ignorance of the legal system is so vast. Love to see you in court.

Justice Roberts: Yawnmaster, what is the legal authority (that's a term of art) for your position?

Yawnmaster: Don't need one.

Justice Roberts: (To the federal marshals) Remove this person from the courtroom.

[yawnmaster]

181. Nor does one need one to understand the constitution. What part of this...

do you not understand and I will try and explain it to you.
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;..."

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kokonoe]

58. Boner's gunna have tears commin outta his ass.

If SS is not approved.

[No Elephants]

146. The debt limit is not a creature of the Constitution, but of politics.

The Executive Branch has not only the power, but the DUTY, to pay the obligations of the United States. Congress has no power to enact laws that prevent that because such laws violate the 14th amendment. Perry v. U.S.

[No Elephants]

147. (a) Neither the 14th amendment nor Perry v. U.S. says anything about an emergency.

You are quoting a theory someone pulled out of the air as though it were objective fact. It isn't.

[jwirr]

177. I was speaking of the political ramifications. If the people see this

as an emergency it will be better for all.

[vt_native]

47. But, what about the Centrism and compromise ?

(sarcasm)

[sulphurdunn]

57. Oops! I dropped the soap.

Bend over and pick it up would ya? That's compromise, and we all know who picks up the soap and where the centrism goes.

[Fool Count]

59. "Stability to our financial markets"? What are they smoking?

Are they serious? That is truly the case when the cure they suggest will be worse
than the decease. How does a President who brazenly ignores the law "brings stability"?
How does issuing tens of billions in legally questionable new debt without congressional
authorization calm the markets? It will only create worse panic than a limited default would.
They appear to be truly insane there in Congress. On both sides. Help us god.

[renegade2011]

77. Sure, Senator Paul:

A "limited" default wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[a2liberal]

61. I think that might actually be best for the economy

Not because of a lack of spending cuts or anything (though that too) but because if upheld it would set a precedent that the US does not default on its debt regardless of political whims.

[defendandprotect]

70. kr

[dpbrown]

80. Do it!

Put those tea-bagging nutjobs in their place!

[renegade2011]

83. Hahaha, I just thought of something funny!

Anybody remember that crazy dude at the town hall meetings, back during ht Healthcare reform thing? "Keep your damn government hands off my Medicare!" Now picture a gaggle of folks just like him, riding around on those Hoverround scooter thingies, screaming for Bachmann's head.

Fun and games, baby! :)

[No Elephants]

148. Do YOU actually remember that crazy dude at town meetings?

Or did you hear jokes along those lines, then Obama claiming someone had actually said that to him? That's what I remember.

I never heard anyone saying at one town meeting, let alone more than one.

[craigmatic]

82. He doesn't want to do this because it'll unite repubs against him where as now they're

in a circular firing squad. They don't know what to do.

[No Elephants]

150. He doesn't want to do it for a variety of pollitical reasons, which include his own

desire for cuts. Meanwhile, people who are old and disabled, including vets, are panicking as a result of his political games and will pay the price, if anyone does

But, that's okay, because everything is about Obama.

[TNLib]

84. Ok so if he does this then the courts over turn it, then what happens?

Just asking because it seems kind of confusing to me.




:shrug:

[No Elephants]

151. You skipped a few steps.

Let's say he pays the obligations of the U.S. to dependent children, vets, disabled people, elderly, many of whom are also disabled, as well as being elderly.

Which politician who plans on being elected again as anything, ever, will sue him over that?

Now, assuming someone does sue. Too late. The money is out among millions of people and foreign nations. Maybe the SCOTUS even says the suit is moot.

[Mosaic]

85. Obama, as Nike used to say

Just do it.

[tavalon]

89. He might even get a second term out of this if he's lucky.

[ColesCountyDem]

94. Nothing in the 14th Amendment gives Obama the power to do anything about this.

Nothing! It's a goofy idea, and I hope Obama DOESN'T do it, because not only would any action allegedly taken pursuant to Section 4 be void ab initio, but it would then give the House a valid reason to begin impeachment proceedings against him.

[Major Hogwash]

112. Sure as hell does. The 14th amendment was passed to pay for the Civil War debts

And it was passed in rapid fashion to keep the country solvent.

Not only did John Dean say that it would work, but he also said that the Supreme Court -- which is appointed to their positions, not elected, in order to keep that court from being influenced by popular societal mores of the day -- would approve of the action.

The country must stay solvent, even if Faux Snooze and the Tea Party faction of the GOP party don't want the country to be able to pay for its bills.

[ColesCountyDem]

157. And the power to ENFORCE IT is with CONGRESS, not the President.

Read Section 5. I don't give a flying FUCK what John Dean says.

:eyes:

[Major Hogwash]

171. You don't give a flying fuck what John Dean says because you're not a lawyer

Nor a Constitutional expert like he is.

Go read Section 4 again.

[ColesCountyDem]

211. Not only AM I a lawyer, I've not been disbarred.

That happens when you commit major felonies, like Mr. Dean did. And what, pray tell, makes him a 'Constitutional expert'? The genuine Constitutional expert residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isn't convinced.

[avaistheone1]

238. Bravo.

Good work.

[No Elephants]

153. The 14th amendment does not stand alone in the Constitution, though.

As head of the Executive Branch, the President, not Congress, cuts the checks to pays the obligations of the U.S. that prior laws of Congress created. And the Constitution of the U.S. requires him to take an oath to faithfully executive the laws of the U.S, which include those laws creating obligations and also include the 14th amendment. And to defend and protect the Constitution, which also includes the 14th amendment. He also controls the Treasury, with all that implies.

So, no, the House would not have a valid reason to impeach, not that it needs one. However, there are political impediments to impeaching again. See Reply 135.

As for amiling checks to millions of vets, hungry kids, disabled people and others being void "ab initio," even if that were true, good luck on getting the money back from the nation's landlords, pharmacies and supermarkets.

[ColesCountyDem]

158. Section 5 SPECIFICALLY gives CONGRESS the power to enforce it.

Sorta thumps the whole 'does not stand alone' argument right in the nuts.

:eyes:

[Major Hogwash]

170. You're not smarter than John Dean. Sorry.

But, it's pretty funny that you think you are.

:rofl:

[ColesCountyDem]

242. I think President Obama is smarter than a disbarred, disgraced attorney.

I find it amusing that you think John Dean knows more about the Constitution than does the President of the United States, who formerly TAUGHT Con Law at the University of Chicago, one of the finest law schools in the entire nation.

:eyes:

[cstanleytech]

96. The risk is that if he does then they will use it in the next election

against him regardless of the fact that they tried to pass the buck themselves to him by trying to give him the ability to raise the ceiling without their voting yes to it themselves but to be honest I dont see Obama being being stupid enough to fall for it.

[No Elephants]

154. So what? They'll use whatever he does or doesn;t do against him in the next election.

It's called politics. So what? He can't respond to criticism from opponents?

Good grief, if Obama really were as lame and weak and ineffectual as some of the posts here imply, he never should have been President to begin with. Whatever happened to the Presidential attitude of "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen?" If Obama is that much of a hothouse flower, unable to do anything but wither when attacked by a Republican, he should pack up and get the hell of the White House anyway.


Besides, under what moral and Democratic principles is it okay to throw hungry kids, orphans, the disabled and the elderly under the bus because Republicans might criticize Obama during a Presidential campaign?

Seriously, who have we becomme?

[deacon]

102. It may have been the plan all along. n/t

[murielm99]

116. I don't think they are smart enough to think that far

ahead. They saw this recent opportunity to create chaos, and they seized it.

Don't make them into superhuman opponents ten feet tall. They are pygmies.

[pam4water]

104. Yeah use the 14 amendment the force is totally not working ;) Sorry my inner geek came out. K&R n/t

[No Elephants]

155. Maybe it's not working because Obama never used the 14th amendment?

[and-justice-for-all]

105. For fucks sake DO IT!!!

[Veracious]

106. PIMP SLAP the Teaterrorists!!!

Use the Constitution!!

[MIZZLady-taylor]

107. amendment 14

I hoping our president will use this amendment to pay our
bills because he need to get back on track the economy
creating jobs for all of us and the wealthy should pay higer
taxes not 18 percent. 

[SaveAmerica]

113. yes, yes, YES!!!!!!

[Deep13]

118. He can't do it and he knows it.

The 14th Amendment says nothing at all about presidential power. It only states that whatever money the Fed. govt has borrowed is a legal debt. Specifically, it refers to the red ink accumulated by the Feds. during the Civil War. It does not change the fact that only Congress can borrow or spend money.

Sorry, but those assholes this country elected last year have to solve this problem.

[Veracious]

119. He can!

"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."

By Defaulting on the debt we legitimately owe The House is violation of The 14th Amendment

[No Elephants]

156. The House is not defaulting on debt. It is simply not raising the debt ceiling.

Not raising the debt ceiling, in and of itself, does not equal default. Non payment of obligations as and when they come due equals default.

Other perfectly valid laws of Congress caused the U.S. to incur obligations. Obama has the job of deciding whether or not he will cut checks (or print money or borrow or do whatever it takes) to cover those already existing obligations incurred by or in obedience to Congress. If he doesn't, he is the one whose failure will equal default.

[Deep13]

191. How is illegally assuming the powers of the House protecting the Constitution?

There's nothing in the Constitution about a requirement for perfect credit. That is a matter of policy that Congress has the power to change.

[No Elephants]

128. Actually, he can and he knows it.

The 14th amendment is not only about civil war debts. Perry v. United States (1935). And, the 14th amendment says nothing about Congressional power, either (though Perry v. U.S. says Congress has NO power to deny the obligations of the U.S.)

Since the 14th amendment is absolute and not self-executing, someone has to execute it. Guess who heads the branch of Government that actually executes stuff?

The 14th Amendment doesn't have to say who writes checks for the U.S. Other parts of the Constitution do.

[Deep13]

192. "Other parts of the Constitution do."

Yes, Article I, sec. 8. Borrowing and spending money are among the enumerated powers of Congress. Nothing anywhere in the Const. says that if Congress fails or declines to do something, the executive can step in and assume legislative powers. Saying that a debt is valid and enforceable is not the same as saying how that debt is to be collected. Nothing in the Const. guarantees that the USA must have a perfect credit rating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

190. He can't write a budget either. Yet he's going to have to do one or the other. n/t

[Deep13]

193. Who says he can't write a budget?

Only Congress can enact a budget into law, but the President and anyone else for that matter can propose one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

194. There's a difference between proposing one and implementing one of your own creation. n/t

[Deep13]

195. Right, only Congress can do the latter. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

196. Without borrowing, Obama will write his own. n/t

[Deep13]

206. How do you figure? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

210. I wouldn't think this all that ambiguous.

If there's not enough money to implement the official adopted budget, he'll have to apply his own set of priorities to determine what gets done (eg write a new budget). Does he want to send out SS checks? Pay Boeing and Halliburton? Fund NASA? Schools?

He'll pay for whatever he chooses. I suppose he'd be hard pressed to explain why he exceeded the budget on anything, but that's not likely.

[w4rma]

165. Just use it and let them sue. There won't be any doubt as to whether it can be used, anymore.

And it will buy time to pass a bill extending the ceiling (if that needs to be done).

[grahamhgreen]

167. Better that than use Social Security to give tax breaks to the rich.

[dbonds]

173. Wouldn't 'Inherent Powers' be a better way to go?

After default, use inherent powers to raise the debt ceiling to keep harm from the US. Using the 14th Amendment would be a legal nightmare.

[Festivito]

174. How about up to just before the election. If Repubs win, we default. If Dems win, we tax the rich.

The people built this country, the people have the right to destroy it.

[treestar]

178. Are we willing to have Republicans Presidents have that power?

It will set that precedent.

[BetsysGhost]

179. Are you kidding me

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) acknowledged that Obama has previously expressed doubts about his legal authority to unilaterally raise the debt limit.

He had no doubts whatsodamnever about his Legal Authority to assassinate American Citizens.

[yawnmaster]

182. One issue is that there is enough tax revenue coming in to pay the debts...

hence, I believe any 14th amendment discussion is moot.
The issue really is what is left to pay expenses once the debts are paid, unless we borrow more money.

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. The other issue is that the president is supposed to implement the budget that congress approves.

Which is the greater constitutional violation? Borrowing the money indicated by the budget or delegating to Obama the responsibility to write a new budget?

[Morizovich]

185. But, but, but.....

That would be rude! :cry:

[Cool Logic]

209. Not to mention, illegal.

[The Second Stone]

213. I think there is strong language in the 14th

Amendment to support continuing to pay debts and pensions. I don't think it requires paying things like Federal government salaries, including Congressional members and staff.

[Ter]

236. I'm no fan of interpretations of the Constitution

If it's not specifically in there, there's no room to debate. Either it says it or not.