14th Amendment Option May Be Legit, Says Leading Senate Republican

[Cereal Kyller]

Source: Huffpost Politics

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Thursday that the Constitution may trump the debt ceiling, allowing the administration a way out of the default impasse.

Negotiators are considering gutting the social safety net in exchange for a vote to lift the debt ceiling. Grassley, in a conference call with local reporters, said that there may be another way out.

"There’s one thing that hasn’t been talked about yet, and I haven't checked on the constitutionality of it -- and I read the Constitution, but I don’t remember reading this -- but in the 14th amendment, there’s something that says something about the debt of the United States government shall be honored," Grassley said, according to a recording of the call. "The 14th Amendment includes a public debt clause that insists the obligations of the government 'shall not be questioned.'"

"So people are looking at the fact that maybe the debt ceiling bill that Congress presumably has to pass for the government to borrow more maybe is contrary to that constitutional provision, and that the administration may take out on their own -- just to borrow money -- and say that they can ignore the law," he said.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/frank-dismisses-14th-amendment-option_n_892492.html

---

Grassley has obviously made up his mind not to seek another term!!! :rofl:

[Enrique]

1. Grassley should not be taken at face value

he's not a straight-talker, he's a weasel, this comment has to be some kind of B.S.

[Igel]

14. This you can take at face value.

The headline's "may" reflects Grassley's saying, "I heard people talking about this, but don't know if it's Constitutionally valid."

If you don't know if X is true, then X may be true. You don't know, you can't say it isn't.

However, we also use "may" to assert actual possibility, if not probability. "X may be true" is taken to mean, "I think there's a good chance that it is true." Grassley's not saying that.

Arguing that Grassley's lack of opinion on the constitutionality of the application of the 14th amendment to abrogate the budget ceiling means he's considered the issue and thinks it might hold water is completely specious. He's reporting on hearsay and doing a good job of not expressing an actual opinion on the topic.

[Drale]

2. The Tea baggers are going to go bat shit insane when they do this thing but

I think the remainder of the "regular" repukes are hoping they do invoke the 14th Amendment because it would take a lot of the crazy off their shoulders.

[Adsos Letter]

4. Which may be one of the reasons Grassley is putting it out there. n/t

[monmouth]

3. Since the repubs (Cornyn in particular) thinks that would be a crazy

idea I think I'd go for it...

[No Elephants]

5. He's bloviating about it, even though he doesn't remember reading it?

Why doesn't he just read it before flapping his lips? It ain't that long.

[Fearless]

6. If the Admin did do this the Rethugs would paint them as big government liberals...

While of course that isn't a bad thing... the rest of the country may not agree. What the President needs to do is put his foot down and say that Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid are off the table and that the only way that the debt ceiling will be moved is to raise taxes on the rich. Then he becomes a hero to the working class. To cut the other programs he becomes a villain. The same is true for the 14th Amendment, even if legal; he will paint the party in a negative light.

Of course, I have little doubt that he will crumble to Rethugs so the 14th Amendment is a moot point anyways. He doesn't have the balls.

[Drale]

7. Honestly I'm not so sure there will by any compromise and

The Democrats are just stringing the Repukes along until the deadline since everyday more and more of the Republican "master plan" is released, and when the deadline hits they are just going to rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional and be done with it.

[Bozita]

8. That's the GOPers' only graceful way out of the box they willingly crawled into ...

... and sealed with duct tape.

[LetTimmySmoke]

26. Or there's the way they're trying to get out of it...

Get Obama to remove the duct tape and let them out, so they can hug and be friends for 5 minutes before Obama gets eaten.

[bemildred]

9. The Constitution says diddle about debt limits.

Congress created it, and it can destroy it, or ignore it, or whatever.

[LarryNM]

10. Another Legal Choice E.O.s

Not sure if we want him to do it, But I understand that Executive Orders are not open to Judicial Review And if defaulting on the U.S. is not an economic emergency, then what is? E.O.12919 and 11051 in particular. 11051 even covers "economic warfare", and I assume that is both foreign and domestic.

[HankyDubs]

11. Not only is the 14th "legit"

There is a legal precedent:

PERRY V. UNITED STATES

http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/330/

"Congress cannot use its power to regulate the value of money so as to invalidate the obligations which the Government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States."

"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."

[No Elephants]

16. Good find! So, why is Obama making concessions and saying we shouldn't have to get to the Consti-

tutional issue?

Seems as though he should start with the Constitutional issue and tell Congress to obey the law.

[DJ13]

18. Why?

Because he also wants to use the debt ceiling as an excuse to ram through cuts to entitlements.

The issue between him and the Republicans is more about how much, not whether there should be cuts.

They're both working for the same things.

[davidwparker]

20. +1

Time will certainly tell, but I think you are on to something.

[harun]

24. +1, not going to fool us again.

[davidwparker]

19. +1

Excellent.

[Fool Count]

23. There are hundreds of ways to fulfill that pledge without

raising or illegally exceeding the debt limit. They could sell some government assets (like gold) to pay the debt, for instance. Or they could stop or
deter some non-debt-related payments. To say that the Constitution demands that US Government borrow more money to pay its debts
is plainly absurd as a legal argument. Even if it was "legit", that argument would still need to be made in front of the Supreme Court, which
would then decide whether to declare the debt ceiling law unconstitutional or not. Until then that law remains valid and breaking it would
be illegal.

[the_chinuk]

12. This is news? What else did they expect a Republican to say? n/t

[Cereal Kyller]

13. Towing the party line

That's what I expected. Since when are the Reprehensibles supposed to be intelligent?

[Judi Lynn]

22. Aberrational behavior for him. He may get a headache from the experience. n/t

[ejbr]

15. Even if the repigs cave, Obama will find a way to give them

more cuts.

[EC]

17. I think mainstream repubs (rather the non-Jesus freaks)

would welcome Obama using this. It would absolve them of having to actually having to raise the ceiling and the tea people would go crazy ...but still back the repubs that had been had...

[Harry Callahan]

21. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the 14th Amendment will require the govt. to service the debt,

prior to spending money on anything else.

[Yupster]

25. Correct - no default necessary

Just massive spending cuts.

[happyslug]

27. No, that if the Congress authorzied spending the money, it can NOT prohibit such spending.

Read the 14th amendment, Section 4, first sentence:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The second sentence addressed the debts of the former Confederacy and the states that succeeded the Union. Those debts are FORBIDDEN to be paid as was any compensation for freeing African-Americans from slavery. Thus the second sentence is NOT in question when it comes to the national debt but it clearly show the concern was Civil War debts, including paper money, then anything else.

The first sentence of he 14th amendment is what at issue. Notice it included "Pensions and bounties". Thus any expenditures, authorized by law, is a valid debt. The issue then becomes what is "authorized by law"? Is the debt ceiling an limitation on what is "authorized by law", or is the debt ceiling a limitation on other debts "authorized by law"? Is the debt ceiling a limitations on what is "authorized by law" as to Social Security payments, soldier's pay, contractual obligations etc or is a restriction of what had been authorized by law by other acts of Congress?. If the debt ceiling is an attempt to limit spending by limiting what is authorized by law, it passes mustard under the 14th, but if it is viewed as a limitations of debts authorized by law, then it violates the 14th Amendment. Thus the key is what was meant by "Authorized by law"?

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, Section 4 does NOT address the issue of what is "authorized by law" but that "pensions and bounties" are included in same sentence as being protected implies any spending authorized by a congressional act is something "authorized by law" and thus any spending restriction is thus illegal UNLESS the actual authorized act is changed by Congress.

The counter argument is simple, Congress passed the debt ceiling as a cap on over all spending and Congress is reserved the right to set taxes and spending and thus the Spending cap is an valid exercise of congressional power AND that the main purpose of the 14th was to address problems the North had funding the Civil War, including the fact that the paper money issued by the North was worth way less then its technical legal value in terms of Gold. Thus the purpose of the first sentence of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment was to make sure the paper money of the US was viewed as legitimate for payment of all and any debts owned by the US Government. Thus the 14th Amendment, Section 4, Sentence 1 was to force people to accept the paper money of the US NOT to restrict on how much Congress can spend or not spend. Given that legal analysis the debt ceiling is constitutional.

Given the the US Supreme Court likes restricting what Democratic Presidents can do, I see then embracing the second interpretation of the first sentence of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which is probably what the writers of the 14th wanted. Thus the 14th had no affect on the legal effect of the debt ceiling.

[jmowreader]

28. I think the 14th Amendment is going to be how they go

It's kind of a weaselly way to get around it, but falling back on the Constitution is a win for both sides: for the Democrats it prevents killing social programs to get the Republicans to pretend to cooperate; the Republicans will say they were forced to go along with "job killing Democrat demands" because The Sacred Constitution, the document they spent the whole first day of the session reading and the next 180 days ignoring, forced them to bow down to the president's iron fist.

The reality of the thing, and even the Republicans know this to be true, is they'll never fix the budgetary problems without eliminating the Bush tax cuts. You can cut all the spending you want, but the key to the whole thing is eliminating the Bush tax cuts. The RNC's plan, now that they know the teabaggers are dangerous, may be to get to November 2012 without destroying the economy so they can throw the election just enough to give Obama enough senators to fix the problems the Republicans created.

[smiley33]

29. If Bush was in office (literally, not figuratively)

he would jump to do something in his interests that was remotely constitutional. Hell, he did whatever he wanted regardless of the constitution. But here we've got Obama continuing the feudalism, feeding his rich bosses.