White House Rules Out Constitutional Option On Debt Ceiling: Report

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- As quickly as the so-called "constitutional option" appeared as a way to resolve the debt ceiling showdown, top White House officials have apparently closed that door.

During Thursday's talks between the president's team and congressional leadership, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner reportedly revealed that he believed the administration did not have the constitutional authority under the 14th Amendment to simply ignore the debt ceiling and continue borrowing money.

From the very end of a New York Times report, comes the following nugget:

In addition to his warnings about the cost of a default, officials said, Mr. Geithner told the lawmakers the White House did not believe it had the authority, under the Constitution, to continue issuing debt if it reached the debt ceiling. Nobody in the room disputed Mr. Geithner’s bleak assessment, the officials said.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/white-house-rules-out-con_n_892940.html

---

[Unvanguard]

1. Oh dear god. Why on Earth reveal that? n/t

[No Elephants]

3. VERY good question. Let's think about it.

One could say, "In 1935, the Supreme Court said that Congress's refusal to honor the debts that Congress incurred violates the Constitution. The Constitution obliges the Execuive to enforce the Constitution and requires the President to swear to defend and protect the Constitution--and that is what I intend to do.

Therefore, with all due respect to Congress, discussion of any other economic issue must await compliance by Congress with the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America."



Or, one could say, "Are two, I mean, four, FOUR trillion in cuts enough, or do we still need to 'negotiate?'"


VERY good question. Let's think about it.

[Yupster]

24. They would just say to

A. rollover maturing bonds so you stay within the existing debt limit.

B. Every month the treasury gets in $ 180 billion or so.

C. Use the first $ 10 billion or so to pay interest on the debt.

D. Use whatever is left to fund the government at that reduced level.

E. What's the problem?

____________________________________________________________________________

I never did get the 14th Amendment argument. It made no sense to me.

The US can stay within its debt limit and still pay interest on the debt.

It just means cutting the rest of the government by about 50 %.

You think that made tea partiers cower? They'd say good -- cut it 60 % just to be safe.

[No Elephants]

26. Paying only interest on debt when principal and interest are due is not paying your obligations.

Besides, "they" (meaning the Republicans in Congress) don't get to "say" how the executive/administrative branch pays off obligations the the executive/administrative branch incurred in order to fulfill laws previously enacted by Congress.

Well, no, they can say what they wish, especially on the floor of Congress. But it's not binding upon the President.

[Yupster]

28. You could pay off the maturing bonds with new bonds

They would still have the authority to issue bonds up to the debt limit. They could sell a new bond for each one matured.

[Yupster]

32. No my understanding is the President

would be the one who would get to decide which programs got funded and which didn't unless congress passed specific laws giving him direction.

The only thing the President couldn't do would be to borrow money without congressional approval as that would clearly violate Article I of the Constitution and lead to his quick impeachment.

[sofa king]

5. Because they can rely on un-Constitutional law.

There are about two dozen anti-terror bills that allow the President to kick in continuity-of-government provisions, and if this government does shut down, the President gets to exercise some or all of them.

Meaning that in about forty-eight hours, Temporary President for Life Obama can use his executive authority to completely fix more problems than he could by "negotiating" for years with a Republican Congress.

Wait until that gets picked up by the press next week. Once it happens (and there will be no reason for it not to happen if no compromise highly favorable to the Democrats is reached), the GOP's best bet will be to steer test cases to the bought Supreme Court, and it will be their job to support their overlords the Republicans by killing off a bunch of terrible and probably illegal legislation that the Republicans wrote and passed.

[No Elephants]

6. Constitution trumps both statutes and treaties.

[sofa king]

45. Let me put it to you this way.

The Constitution, and Constitutional law which follows from it, considers the treaty to be the highest law of the land. The United States completed literally hundreds of treaties, negotiated by agents appointed by the President and approved by the executive (yes, executive) authority of the Senate, and then violated them, most recently when George Bush unilaterally walked away from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty by announcing it at a press conference and laughing at the camera.

What form of redress does anyone have when the United States blithely violates a treaty?

None. The United States has sovereign immunity, and cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be sued.

So the highest law of the land, and everything underneath it, is bullshit. More bullshit trumps bullshit and bullshit. If someone tries to stop this President from doing whatever he wants, and the President does not wish to stop, he cannot be stopped.

That is the lesson of George Bush. Let us hope we don't have to learn it again.

[QC]

35. It's all part of the masterful strategy!

[lamp_shade]

2. A no-brainer. Imagine the consequences if the W.H. said "We'll use it if we have to".

[No Elephants]

7. He DOES have to. He took a damned oath.

[valerief]

38. He didn't have to go after war criminal prez Bush. Supposed to but didn't. nt

[Pholus]

11. Ummmm, the other side has to go on the defense FOR A CHANGE? nt

[No Elephants]

25. How does taking his strongest point off the table make Republicans go on the defense?

[creeksneakers2]

39. It was never a strong point

The idea of the president issuing debt without the consent of Congress had no validity at all. Even talking about it could backfire if the other side started talking about what a shocking abuse of power trying it would be.

[Pholus]

40. It doesn't. Even if it wouldn't hold up, the option was there. He shouldn't have said boo about it

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Negotiation from strength, not an option.

This administration refuses to use its executive power at every opportunity.

[No Elephants]

8. Please see Reply 3. He shouldn't be negotiating AT ALL.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Yeah he should: raise the debt ceiling like a responsible congress or

I'll do it for you. That should be his negotiating position.

[No Elephants]

10. That's what Reply 3 pretty much says, except "irresponsible" is not the issue. Illegal is the issue.

[Vinca]

12. Knock me over with a feather.

[florida08]

13. How many times did republicans raise the ceiling under Bush?

They're discussing impeaching POTUS if he does it unilaterally. Obama won't let that happening in the midst of an election. That's OFF the table. It's checkmate. Besides this was the venue chosen to bring out the cuts.

Moreover, this proposal is further evidence that the debt ceiling negotiations were an intentional decision on Obama’s part. The president genuinely believes in deficit reduction, and chose to use the debt ceiling as an opportunity to cut spending with significant bipartisan cover. Obama hasn’t been fooled into these negotiations, nor is he playing rope-a-dope or a complex game of eleven-dimensional chess. This is what he wants.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/161846/entitlements-table-obama-plans-go-big-budget-deal

I agree

[alsame]

14. This is the only logical conclusion. Obama is not stupid, weak or

naive. He's just conservative and uses these 'hostage' situations to move to the right while pretending he was forced to do so for the sake of the country.

[somone]

17. Bingo

The simplest explanation is usually the truth - given the extensive record of betrayals

[COLGATE4]

20. Ding Ding Ding/ We have a winner!

[No Elephants]

30. Obama is not weak. Look at Libya, extending tax cuts and this situation.

When he wants to do something, he does it, and usually by an end run around Congress, even when both houses of Congress are controlled by Democrats. The poor President who is so powerless and at the mercy of Lieberman, Blue Dogs or whomever, just won't wash.

[florida08]

36. exactly

everything is getting shoved to the right including us.

[Liberalynn]

43. You nailed it

[MilesColtrane]

18. The Republicans currently in Congressional leadershihip positions combined to vote for...

a debt limit increase 19 times during the Bush administration. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion.

At the beginning of the Bush's term, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion.

Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions.

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”.

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All three approve.

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All three approve.

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All three approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All three approve.

Their current blackmailing stance is a display of rank hypocrisy at its finest.

[florida08]

31. thank you

:)

[freshwest]

46. Thanks for the stats. The people are just being stampeded into giving up more.

With the help of the corporatist media.

[No Elephants]

29. The election isn't until 2012. And threatening to impeach doesn't mean squat.

They know what happened after they impeached Clinton as well as we do. The last thing they want to do is raise Obama's approval ratings.

By the same token, if they are indeed bent on impeaching Obama, giving into them will not stop them. Nothing will, also as evidenced by the Clinton impeachment.

Besides, I would advocate impeaching, too, if I thought a President were violating the separation of powers. However, in this case, there is a 1935 case that says its Congress that is acting unconstitutionally, not the President.

[florida08]

34. good point

It's noise to distract just like the birthers and I do agree that it is Congress but you know what happened after Clinton's term was over. We got Bush and a republican mandate that started us on the road to ruin. This is what they do. Yell and scream until the average voter has been whipped into a frenzy. We can't really survive another one party GOP rule again not to mention another SCOTUS selection.

[w4rma]

15. Of course Obama rules it out. He is very consistant. (nt)

[Javaman]

16. mr. cagey 23 level chess player poker face just revealed his hand.

way to go Obama.

[villager]

19. Well, of course. This is administration is all sand, with nary a line in it anywhere...

n/t

[harun]

21. How come we never see the Republican's ever rule anything out?

[dmosh42]

22. More submission! n/t

[Iggo]

23. Why? Because it'll work?

[placton]

27. ah it's the 98th dimensional negotiating strategy

that we hoi polloi are too stupid to understand!

[Turbineguy]

33. Never play

the trump card early.

[valerief]

37. Am I gonna be able to retire? nt

[BlueIdaho]

41. So much for "everything should be on the table."

I want a new President.

[oNobodyo]

42. They might not have "authority" but congress sure as hell...

has the RESPONSIBILITY under the 14th amendment.

The administrations "authority to borrow" was never even the point of the 14th...

[Yupster]

44. Even the mos rightwing congressman thinks

we should pay our debts.

And he's willing to cut the size of the rest of the government in half to do it.

Interest on the debt is not a large part of the budget.

Even without borrowing we could easily pay it.

It would require eliminating just about half of all other government spending to do it though.

That scares you and me, but it doesn't scare Rand Paul. He says good. Let's balance the budget right now. Problem solved.