Obama to use 14th amendment to raise debt ceiling

Obama should ask himself: WWBCD (what would Bill Clinton do) and the answer is he would just raise the debt ceiling and let the Republicans try to fight him in court. Bam should do the same.

I can't stand Obama but hell, if this tool is really at his disposal then for God's sake use it and be done with this nonsense.

NYCMatt..amen brother.

This is a lot of politics. Obama wants a deal where this doesn't come up again until after 2012, and the Republicans aren't agreeing to that. The role of the President is to stay in power.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/full

Nothing in the 14th changes the branches' respective Constitutional powers. It simply establishes the validity of the public debt (that being debt already incurred) and disavows the debt of the rebels (that being the Civil War South). Congress' power has always been and continues to be to coin money, borrow on the nation's credit, pay debt, and create federal statutes in support of those powers. The "debt ceiling" is one of those statutes that is designed to give the Treasury a flexible debt envelope to work within without the inefficient latency involved in going to Congress every time a debt issuance becomes necessary. Furthermore Congress cannot lawfully cede their Constitutional authority to the President or otherwise modify the Constitution by virtue of a signed federal statute. That's what amendments are for obviously.

You see, the "tool" is not lawfully at his disposal and everyone knows it *including* the President. Otherwise there would be no struggle around the debt ceiling/debt question. The notions being floated by the administration and their supporters in government/media are designed to gauge the ignorance of the public on this subject and to test what Congress' and People's reaction might be to an incredibly unlawful action of a president spending or incurring debt in violation of the Law.

Hey RS, why are you greyed out? What did I miss?

oh shit! riversider has been trolled too! what does it all mean?

I would venture a guess but, if I did, the SE censors would probably grey me out as well.

the 14th is subject to interpretation issues which is the main issue. It can be seen both ways. It definitely parallels matt damon in good will hunting citing free carriage rights to get out of charges.

it's occured to me before that alan might be wbottom and cc, and you at times, for that matter. but riversider? that's way out of left field!

of course now i don't think you're any of those people. we both know who you are. and that means one of 2 things. either your arrogance has made you comepletely careless, or a truly disturbed person whom i could never hope to approach in pure insanity is setting you up.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but, then again, that is par for the course.

>> the 14th is subject to interpretation issues which is the main issue. It can be seen both ways.

Interesting, I'd love to hear that rationale. The 14th simply defines the *validity* of the lawfully incurred public debt and, more pointedly, the debts incurred putting down the South or other future rebellions. It also rejects debts incurred by rebels or aggrieved former slave-owners who make claims against the USA. It does not grant the President the power to incur new debt or spend monies that have not been authorized by statute as that is an exclusive power of Congress.

With respect it's quite a weak position to say that "shall not be questioned" means that if the bond markets threaten our AAA that this somehow grants the President unspecified and unlimited power with respect to handling debt issuance or repayment.

reference...
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.

Well, I'm beginning to think that Congress is not going to come up with a bill in time. I mean, we've only got four or five days, and they are not even close to having the votes to pass one of these bills.

I know it's possible that the Treasury won't run out of money for an extra week or so....my guess is, somebody in the executive branch will announce on Monday that it looks like we have at least several more days of cushion, and we're all going to be regaled with more of this dreary political theatre in the media.

The markets are going to get very very anxious as each day passes without a deal -- most lending will grind to a halt, banks will want to wait till the markets settle down before they try to price an asset. Equities will continue to fall, UST yields will continue to rise...

And then it's going to be a full-blown crisis by the time we're a few days past the original deadline. Somewhere around Wednesday or Thursday next week, the whole financial sector is going to be frozen over, waiting for the pols to do something....

If that happens, and if it gets extremely stupid and the insanity factor is really big, there will be a lot of pressure on Obama to just take action, cite the 14th and let the chips fall where they may.

That would absolutely lead to calls for impeachment, as the Post columnist says. But maybe it will give us an impetus to deal with reality for a change, instead of just living with the non-stop lies that lobbyists and businses shove down our throats 24/7.

Social security is not communism. High-net worth individuals are not job creators. We won't survive global warming unless we stop putting so much CO2 into the air.

It might be nice if we started to deal with the truth for a change.

Just heard Fareed Zacharia talk about the subject. His points:

- what the teaparty is doing is holding the government and the country hostage
- the whole point of a democratic government is getting to a point of agreement
- if one party can't get the president, the senate, public opinion, etc. on their side, then they need to compromise and find another way to represent those views
- their actions are not only non-democratic (the true sense of anti-American) but against the very spirit of the constitution which relies on checks and balances
- this is stubborn hostage taking and is risking to dramatically impact our standing in the world (yes, you can make lots of comments that we already did this ourselves, but the point is valid)
- you can't say "do this or i'll shut you down, come hell or highwater" - that is directly opposing the well-being of the country
- further, paying our debt, the money we already spent, is a moral obligation; the greatest democracy in the world can't just decide to not pay their bill after eating their meal
- only after doing so can we begin an intelligent conversation about how to not find ourselves in the same place

... i agree. what a disgrace ...

Privatize Medicare and cut taxes for corporations or we will force you into default.

Sincerely,

Eric Cantor

"It does not grant the President the power to incur new debt or spend monies that have not been authorized by statute as that is an exclusive power of Congress."

So, why wouldn't the appropriation bills and legislation providing for various forms of mandatory spending that Congress has already passed allow the President to incur debt or spend the monies authorized therein?

It seems odd to me that you're speaking in legal certainties about a legal theory that has, as far as I know, never been tested in court. So you're conveying opinion as if it is a tested fact. Some people may think that it's a weak argument to assert that the 14th amendment also conveys various privacy rights, but it turns out the Supreme Court disagrees.

It's also odd that you're talking about the fact that Congress can't delegate spending authority to the President via legislation when the theory here is that the Constitution itself (as amended) gives him the power to satisfy existing debts. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable theory with regards to interest payments at least, although the government could more than cover interest payments with existing revenue.

This clip really lays out the issue very clearly. The law professor here says we're in a similar situation to one the Union was in when the 14th was written -- a new Congress wants to refuse to pay the debts incurred by a previous administration.

The 14th amendment, this law professor says, was designed to prevent our debt obligation from being used as a political football.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43951699#43951699

I hope when this is all over, we have a very big groundswell to impeach these freshmen tea baggers. They are not competent to govern!!!!!

Or, the Senate could have passed what the house (representatives of the people) put before them? How is the house holding the government hostage when the Senate are the ones refusing to progress the bill?

The federal government brings in enough income without needing to borrow more. If we can't afford luxuries, we shouldn't pay for them.

This line of thinking is exactly what got so many american into credit problems previously.

I think the 14th amendment is definitely an option. I doubt the supreme court or congress would override his decision if it comes to that. It would also certainly guarantee Obama a second term. This whole showdown could even return the House back to the Democrats. It could turn out to be the Republicans biggest mistake of the decade.

The 14th amndmnt has nothing to do with raising the budget ceiling. The 14th amndmt is a post Civil War amndmt to ensure that states could not deprive newly emancipated slaves of the rights given to them by the US Constitution- ie: Due Process & Equal Protection.

the 13th amndmt abolished slavery
the 14th amndmt gave all US citizens Due Process & Equal Protection
the 15th amndmt gave emancipated male slaves the right to vote.

If Obama (Executive Branch) uses the 14th amndmt to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling (which is a violation of the Constitution), it will cause a Constitutional Crisis & will most likely trigger commencement of Impeachment proceedings. Add that scenario to the present debt & default mess & this country will really destabilize.

Please also consider this: You like Obama & you want him to do this, but, such action sets a precedent: What happens if a future president, who you do not like, does this: You've set the precedent, so now you're stuck.

Nightmare scenario: Dubya gets elected again as POTUS & following in Obama's footsteps, uses the 14th to raise the debt ceiling. Hey, he's just following the precedent set by Obama, right? That door has been opened & may not be easily closed, nor the bell unrung.

This is why we are a nation of laws, not people.

When people support this dangerous misuse of the 14th, they are in effect nullifying Congress & giving much more power to the Executive than the Constitution envisions. It's a dangerous slippery slope: Could this lead to the Executive unilaterally over riding a Supreme Ct decision & thereby nullify the Judiciary?

No matter what party you support, you should never support giving one branch nullification power over another branch. That leads to dictatorship. We have 3 branches that balance power. It's not the structure of the 3 branches that needs changing, but rather the people who occupy offices within those 3 branches. And those people do change, but via elections, not by Executive Order.

dwell: Barcelona!

Cheers!

Oh, I sooooooooooo wish I was in Barcelona right now!! Great city, great people, great food!!

dwell, the video posted by GG above address your concerns.

Let's meet there and go grocery shopping at the....

You know where!!!

Thanks Sunday, I didn't see it.

Stop, Truth. That's torture.

dwell: LOL!!!

I saw the MSNBC clip & disagree with the UCLA professor. The language of that 1935 US S.Ct decision is non-binding dicta, it is not the holding of that case, so that case is not binding precedent, not stare decisis.

Here's something I agree with:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/07/27/general-us-debt-showdown-amendment_8587264.html

"Some legal scholars have said the president can invoke that clause to keep the nation from defaulting on the debt, although there is no legal precedent for such an action."

Other thing I agree with: If Obama uses the 14th, Impeachment Proceedings will be commenced shortly thereafter & we will be in a bigger mess than we are already in.

Even if one disagrees on whether there is a legal precedent to do something does not mean it cannot be done. A new precedent can be set. The final ruling can be worded to restrict its future use as much as possible.

Impeachment proceedings would just raise Obama's approval ratings! Like I said, it will guarantee Obama a second term.

The debt ceiling will be raised one way or another. I think the real question now is whether we would keep our AAA rating without a significant plan to cut the deficit. The current Republican plan is probably too small and the Democrat's plan, while larger, does appear to be filled with "smoke and mirror."

"A new precedent can be set. "

That is true, but to set precedent in such an important federal case, it would have to be decided by the US Supreme Ct. Lower courts, trial courts, do not set precedent. Only Appellant (Appeals) Courts set precedent.

So, if Obama used the 14th, there'd be a lawsuit with an injunction (a stay) to stop him & the parties would probably ask that the case be fast tracked to the SCOTUS.

So, this is not a quick solution.

"The final ruling can be worded to restrict its future use as much as possible."
Not necessarily. We never know how a court might rule, especially in such an important case as this would be.

"The current Republican plan is probably too small and the Democrat's plan, while larger, does appear to be filled with "smoke and mirror."

Agreed. Congress has to put on their big boy & big girl pants & find a solution asap. That's their job.

or what?

"...there'd be a lawsuit with an injunction (a stay) to stop him & the parties would probably ask that the case be fast tracked to the SCOTUS.

So, this is not a quick solution."

I am not a lawyer, but I would think the judges would only stop him pending a final ruling in this case if they thought his action would be irreversible.

I hope the 14th amendment being a "possible" option, would encourage the Republicans to compromise before the deadline.

i'm afraid its the other way around. they are unlikely to compromise if they think that obama will take them off the hook.

Congress should fight about the budget, not about the debt ceiling.

congress should do many things, none of which they do.

If the Republicans compromise now, Obama wins nothing.

nobody is going to win anything here.

If they don't, Obama get a chance to be the hero again and likely gets a second term.

Sunday,

"I would think the judges would only stop him pending a final ruling in this case if they thought his action would be irreversible."

I was referring to a "stay" pending decision on the merits of a case. Everything is frozen until the "merits" are decided.

"I hope the 14th amendment being a "possible" option, would encourage the Republicans to compromise before the deadline."
I think it would do the opposite & would just complicate everything more.

a hero? with 9+% unemployment? not happening. the only way obama gets a second term is if the republicans continue to shoot themselves in the foot as they are currently doing and nominate bachman or someone like that.

cc, like it or not, anyone with cash in their investment account has an opportunity to make some money through all this.

how?

dwell: "I think it would do the opposite & would just complicate everything more."

You could be right, but the possibility of the option is already out there. So we can only just wait and see what happens.

I think some kind of frankenstein compromise will be reached this coming week. But, we'll have to revisit this issue again & again. The "good" part is that now the public is awake & aware & really grasps the seriousness of our financial situation.

cc, if you see financially stable stocks that you like drops 10% - 30% purely because of this, you can make some money in the short-term if you are willing to take the risk and buy in increments.

you are assuming that stocks will drop 10-30%? so the dow will be somewhere between 10,800 and 8,400?

cc, the dow is only 30 stocks and is not necessarily where you would find the best bargains. With that said, the drops already started (-3.5 to -4.5% for major indices last week). Also, is it really that unimaginable for the dow to dip below 11,000 next week if no deal is reached by Tuesday?

the dow has been trading between 11 and 12.8 and last week's drop was approximately equal to the prior week's run-up. quite unlikely that a significant drop due to the stupidity in congress wouldn't be reflected across the broad market which would obviously include the dow stocks.

trying to time the market in general is beyond my abilities and trying to time this particular event strikes me as beyond risky.

the ultimate irony of all this is that the problem isn't the debt limit nor the short term deficit. without employment and growth, we're screwed and even with both of the boxes checked we'll be screwed unless we begin to elect politicians who tell us the truth not want we want to hear.

>trying to time the market in general is beyond my abilities and trying to time this particular event strikes me as beyond risky.

Says a guy who previously acknowledged selling in March 2009.

>Agreed. Congress has to put on their big boy & big girl pants & find a solution asap. That's their job.

Give me a break. The deadline is August 2, today is July 30. Things get done last minute.