Obama says he can't raise debt ceiling on his own

[elocs]

Source: USA Today

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/07/obama-speaks-at-university-of-maryland/1

President Obama said today that Congress has to avoid a government default by raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling because his lawyers say he lacks the authority to do so on his own.

Responding to a questioner at the University of Maryland, Obama struck the "14th amendment theory" -- that the Constitution gives the president the authority to make sure the nation's debts are paid, including an increase in the debt ceiling.

"There's a provision in our Constitution that speaks to making sure that the United States meets its obligations, and there have been some suggestions that a president could use that language to basically ignore this debt ceiling rule, which is a statutory rule; it's not a constitutional rule," Obama said.

He said, "I have talked to my lawyers ... They're not persuaded that that is a winning argument."

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/07/obama-speaks-at-university-of-maryland/1

---

I've been sure Obama knew all about the 14th Amendment and the answer is that he thinks it does not apply.

[blueclown]

1. I would take that fight.

But then again, it's a matter of priorities.

Would the President rather

a) use the Constitution to pass through a debt ceiling increase that doesn't cut important social programs, but (GOD FORBID) offends Republicans.

b) Fight with the GOP House over a debt ceiling increase that will devastating very important social programs, and not raise taxes immediately.

[FBaggins]

4. You can't "use the Constitution"...

...to do something which the Constitution doesn't empower you to do.

[Yavin4]

9. Tell That to the Bush/Cheney Administration

They did whatever they wanted to do.

[FBaggins]

12. So that makes it ok?

If I opposed it under Bush I'm supposed to chagne my mind when a Democrat is in office?

[No Elephants]

65. As if no one has ever approved of Obama's doing something for which they excoriated Bush.

But, this is the same thing and isn't, at the same time.

It is the same thing: Yoo and Bybee gave Bushco the desired answer to support and give political cover for what Bushco wanted to do anyway. So did Obama's lawyers.

Yoo and Bybee really stretched a point, to put it mildly. So did Obama's lawyers.

It is not the same thing. Neither the Constitution nor treaties to which the U.S. is a Party nor international common law support torture, even to the point of death, as did Yoo's memo. The Constitution and an existing Supreme Court case amply support the opposite of the conclusion allegedly reached by Obama's lawyers.

See also Reply 68.

[hack89]

108. Yea - lets make Bush our role model for proper government. nt

[loyalsister]

110. Thank you!!

I have tried to make that point many times. Seems that Obama is a true believe in the constitution and the brand of representative democracy that we have been living under. Who wants a president who believes he should follow rules of law?

[blueclown]

11. What are you talking about?

The money for the budget of this fiscal year has already been appropriated. While the President would probably have a challenge in the courts if he was to go the 14th Amendment route, there is a fight to be had over whether the Congress should have the ultimate power to allow the United States of America to default. The 14th Amendment clearly states the following:

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.

The 14th Amendment is not clear on who holds this ultimate power, but the executive branch can claim that they do, and with an argument on the basis of the "general welfare of the people", may win the argument in Court.

[FBaggins]

13. The money has already been appropriated?

Wouldn't that require a budget?

a fight to be had over whether the Congress should have the ultimate power to allow the United States of America to default.

Neither the Congress nor the President has the power to allow the US to default. That's what the 14th says.

All that means is that when the cap is reached and there isn't enough money to do everything... not making payments on the debt isn't an option.

[hugo_from_TN]

17. Exactly - payments on the debt will be made

which means other things will not be funded

[FBaggins]

20. Yep. And the executive WILL have some discretion there

but that's mostly bad news.

[blueclown]

55. A temporary budget bill was already passed.

It was passed in March and will last until the end of the fiscal year.

The 14th Amendment simply states that the validity of the public debt of the U.S government shall not be questioned. It does not state who has the power to question that validity, or who has the power to raise the debt ceiling. That will be for the Supreme Court to decide. Again, I'd like to stress that there is a temporary budget already in place, and a budget that will last till the end of the September. The money has already been appropriated. It is what helped avert a government shutdown months ago.

[No Elephants]

68. Perry v. United States

Funny, I googled a few minutes ago to get the name of the case. (For some reason, Paris v. U.S. had gotten stuck in my head, but I knew that was wrong.)

Who has the power to question? ANYone to whom money is owed under bills already passed by Congress and also the President. Why do I saw the President?


His Constitutionally required oath requires him to faithfully execute the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Hence, he is the Chief Excutive of the U.S., our CEO, and head of the Dept of Treasury, with a duty to run that Dept and all Departments in a way that comports with both the Constitution and laws passed by Congress and treaties entered into in accordance with the Constitution.

Laws of Congress include duly adopted appropriations bills. Yes, they also include the debt ceiling. However, that is currently in conflict with both the 14th amendment and appropriations bills. And Perry v. United States says Congress has no power to go back on obligations incurred pursuant to its appropriations bill.

The Constitution also requires the President is also required to swear to defend and protect the Constitution. That includes the 14th amendment and taking the appropriate action to ensure that debts of the U.S. are not questioned.

If those are not arguments better grounded in law than whatever bs Yoo and Bybee made up to justify torture, even to the point of death, I'll eat my copy of the Constitution.

[blueclown]

57. The 14th Amendment says nothing about a cap or a ceiling.

It simply states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.

What I understand that to mean is that any appropriations or spending that have already been passed, those "debts" cannot be questioned and must be paid for by the U.S. government. It doesn't infer any power to any branch of the government this power. Which is why, as I said, the matter will be up to the courts.

[No Elephants]

74. Which branch is in charge of cutting checks to pay the obligations of the U.S.?

Believe that is the Executive Branch.

Why assume the court in Perry v. U.S. and the Congress of the U.S. that passed the 14th amendment were unaware of the rest of the Constitution?

[blueclown]

99. I believe you are making my point.

What are we arguing about here?

[No Elephants]

66. The President is the boss of Treasury.

[FBaggins]

101. So?

That doesn't give him the power to do whatever he likes with it.

The difference between an executive and a dictator.

[No Elephants]

69. You're assuming Social Security is not an obligation of the United States?

[FBaggins]

100. That's correct. It isn't

The government can decide tomorrow that it will cancel the program or change any aspect of it.

They can't decide not to make payments on treasury securities.

[Synicus Maximus]

106. It's not an obligation. See Helvering vs. Davis (1937)

The Supreme Court found that SS payments were just a tax and could be used for anything.
Syllabus
Section 8
Title II of the Social Security Act provides for "Federal Old-Age Benefits" for persons who have attained the age of 65. It creates an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the Treasury and authorizes future appropriations to provide for the required old-age payments, but, in itself, neither appropriates money nor brings any money into the Treasury. Title VIII imposes an "excise" tax on employers, to be paid "with respect to having individuals in their employ," measured on the wages, and an "income tax on employees," measured on their wages, to be collected by their employers by deduction from wages. These taxes are not applicable to certain kinds of employment, including agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years.

[AndyTiedye]

28. The Supreme Court Would Rule Against Him and He Knows It

The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. We all know they would rule for the Republicans in this.

[blueclown]

56. I know the decision would be 5-4.

My point is that it's better for Obama to take the matter to the courts, with the slight chance that Anthony Kennedy will decide for the President, than to "swallow our peas" and accept brutal cuts on important social services.

[No Elephants]

71. Actually, you have no idea what the decision will be. let alone that it will be 5-4.

[No Elephants]

70. No, neither he nor his lawyers know it. Perry v. United States. Please see also Replies 63 and 68.

Besides, do you really think the House would sue the President if he had the Treasury pay Social Security checks for August. A potential constitutional crisis over the U.S. keeping its statury and Constitutional obligation to pay money it has already voted to pay to orphans, the elderly and the disabled? Politically and legally, that would be suicide.

And don't be so sure that the SCOTUS would overrule Perry v. U.S. Republicans loves them some unitary executives and the SCOTUS understands that any case they decide against Obama will still be binding law when a Republican President takes office and they can't simply overrule themselves based on the Party of the current President, at least not without immeasurable cost.

[AndyTiedye]

107. They Could Rule for The Repigs But Not Allow it to Set Precedent, Like they Did in Bush v. Gore

Very likely there is no guesswork involved.
The wingnuts on the Court have most likely told Obama how they would rule.

This is a very high-stakes game, and the Repigs hold all the cards.

[creeksneakers2]

40. There's a shortfall

That's a problem for Congress to solve. Where in the 14th Amendment does it say the president has the power to borrow money on his own authority?

[No Elephants]

72. If he has to borrow or print money to pay the obligations of the United

States incurred pursuant to prior Congressional appropriations, he is not acting on his own authority, but pursuant to duly adopted Congressional appropriations bills, the 14th Amendment, his powers as Chief Executive, his Constitutionally mandated oath of office AND the decision of the SCOTUS in Perry v. U.S.

That's one heck of a lot of lawful and legal authority to borrow or print money or do whatever he has to do to avoid default.

[Igel]

53. Yes, it is.

Everybody's been citing the 14th amendment, section 4.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to
enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions
of this article.

The Congress is to produce legislation to enforce the article; the president is to implement the legislation passed and signed into law.

The general welfare is also in Congress' jurisdiction:

Article I of the Constitution:
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;...

Article II, outlining the duties of the president, doesn't mention the general welfare. Ampng his duties is upholding the laws.

[No Elephants]

75. And? Article I of the Constitution vests ALL the legislative power of the U.S. in Congress.

So, of course Amendment 14 says Congress can enact laws to implement Amend. 14.

That does not mean, however that Amend. 14 is implying that the Chief Executive has lost any of his Constitutional powers or been relieved of any of his or her Constitutuional duties.

Article II, however, vests the Executive Power of the U.S. in the POTUS. And then, there's his oath of office.

Congress has already enacted the laws that create various obligations. The POTUS has both the power and the duty to do what he has to do to pay those obligations because Congress has NO power to renege on them. Perry v. U.S.

Please see also Replies 63, 68 and 70.

[GodlessBiker]

102. Does the Constitution permit the Congress to set a debt ceiling, in light of the 14th Amendment?

[appal_jack]

29. Of course he can't.

Obama can't invoke the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution to legitimately prevent default on the US debt, because his corporate puppet-masters are pulling his strings in another direction entirely.

:argh:

Instead, Obama will do exactly what TPTB demand: facilitate the final and absolute theft of the $2.5 Trillion Social Security surplus while dismantling the rest of the New Deal, and otherwise dragging the US down toward mediocre third-world plutocratic kleptocracy. Sure am glad I campaigned for this 'Hope & Change' candidate in 2008 (/sarcasm); won't be fooled again in 2012.

-app

[creeksneakers2]

41. Don't get carried away

[No Elephants]

76. I don't know about PTB. I do know that Obama campaigned on

changes to Social Security, thought up the Cat Food Commission and appointed Simpson to head it.

And put a lot of Republicans and conservadems in his administration. And, until just recently, has excluded everyone from his secret meetings with Boehner, and may have done the same when he met with McConnell re: tax cuts.

I also know that lawyers giving a legal opinion will bend over backwards to reach the result the person or persons paying them would like to see them reach.

That's a heck of a bread crumb trail

[No Elephants]

64. It does empower him. Funny, Bush's lawyers told him he could torture, but Obama's tell him

he has to give in on Social Security and Medicare, which he basically campaigned on anyway.

Read the 14th amendment, Perry v. United States, then Article II of the Constitution AND the President's oath of office, also in the Constitution.

[No Elephants]

63. He'd rather cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

[Kennah]

67. Sounds like Obama's lawyers are telling him to use torture

[No Elephants]

73. LOL! I hadn;t looked at it that way, only that, like most lawyers, they are giving

their client pretty much the opinion the client, who is paying them, wants them to give.

I think Bush's lawyers REALLY had to stretch to tell their client what he wanted them to say

I think Obama's lawyers could easily have told him that the Constitution and Perry v. U.S. give him more than enough authority to pay Social Security.

The fact that they said the opposite tells us more about what Obama wanted than it does about existing law, just as Yoo's opinion told us more about what Bush wanted than it did about existing law.

[Yo_Mama]

97. Yeah, please let's not abuse the pres for following the law

The 14th amendment thing is extremely novel, to say the least. It's a unique theory that has never been advanced before, and it appears to flatly contradict the language on congressional powers.

I believe the president would be rebuffed by the SC if he tried to use that legal theory to raise debt. In any case, there would be extreme doubt about his authority to do it.

So now consider the practical aspects if the president went ahead and directed Geithner to go raise money on his own:
-Some treasuries out there might not be "legal" debt, and therefore Congress could repudiate them. I would think this would be a worse crisis for investor confidence than any other alternative. Certainly rates would jack up.

-Congress would dissolve in internal bickering over the president's actions, and many Democrats would find themselves on the opposite side of the president. Eventually Congress is responsible for handling this, so the president might well have weakened his own coalition.

-Next time you have a president you don't like in there, the precedent would be set for the president to go start his own bombing campaigns and raise his own money to pay for it. This is the worst of all possible outcomes for the US. Heck, the current one is not too far from this right now.

[Maccagirl]

2. Bill Clinton thinks he ought to use it and he would win in the courts

if Congress blocked him.

[former9thward]

14. That is not what Clinton said.

He said he would use the 14A "and force the courts to stop me." Which implies that he knows the courts would stop him. For Obama to do so would invite financial uncertainty at best and would be irresponsible. That is why he is not going to do it. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/20/138511612/bill-clinton-says-hed-raise-the-debt-ceiling-using-14th-amendment

[No Elephants]

79. Actually, that hat is only your interpretation of what Clinton said. What Clinton intended by

his statement is best known to Clinton.

Remember, Bubba was speaking as a politician for public consumption, not giving a carefully researched and reasoned legal opinion. In fact, he may have done no legal research whatever on the matter before making his statement. That is probably not how he spends his spare time nowadays.

What I think he is saying is, as a practical matter, the House will not sue, much the same thing I posted in Reply 70. And, if they sue, the decision will likely come too late to stop Obama from doing what he has to do to meet the obligations of the U.S. And my guess about Bubba's intentions is as good or as bad as yours.

Please see also Replies 63, 68 and 70.

[No Elephants]

77. Bill Clinton has no legal training and is none too bright. Oh, wait....

I wonder if any of Obama's lawyers were Rhodes Scholars?

[former9thward]

105. I wonder if any of Obama's lawyers have been disbarred.

[thereismore]

3. Interesting that he takes away an option that might save us all. nt

[Cherchez la Femme]

6. Perhaps because it's an option he doesn't want...

[Skink]

5. Doesn't an amendmant just kick in?

Wouldn't he have to say in the day of a default the 14th amendment now makes the decision for us.

[freshwest]

43. Apparently not, or Clinton would have used it when the GOP shut the govt. down in the 1990s.

[Recursion]

50. 95 wasn't a debt limit negotiation

It was a budget negotiation, like we had over Christmas.

[freshwest]

52. The debt limit is just added terrorism from the RWers. It's a budget negotiation they refused.

[Igel]

54. No, that was different.

This is a debt ceiling, not a spending authorization. Clinton and Congress couldn't agree on a budget that authorized him to spend money; Clinton had authorization to borrow more to implement a budget.

Obama has a budget and the authorization to spend all kinds of money. He just doesn't have authorization to borrow the money.

[No Elephants]

83. This is not a year by year matter. We have obligations under treaties, domestic laws

and contracts duly entered into that go well beyond one year.

[freshwest]

104. So, you see this as the 'starve the beast' government shut down happiness gone wild.

The GOP was perfectly happy without cutting Social Security, especially Medicaid, which they've advocated as block grants and then nothing. They no longer want to privatize Social Securty, are for less private insurance companies to keep the cost of Medicare down, and have stopped their decades of rhetoric about money being wasted in welfare. Wow, new GOP in town, they've gone liberal on us.

[No Elephants]

80. That is not a valid extrapolation, unless you have a time machine, are Sherlock Holmes AND can read

minds.

[No Elephants]

85. Laws, including the Constitution, are rarely, if ever, self-executing.

They have to be taken advantage of, or enforced, as appropriate.

If you have a right under some law to a scholarship, you still have to apply for it.

If spitting is against the law, someone has to enforce the law when they you spit. (laws can't prevent violations, only punish or remedy them.)

That's why the Constitution provided for executive and judicial branches, and not only a legislative branch. And also perhaps why the Constitution did not vest all powers in Congress.

See also. http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/Letter_Transmitting_Constitution.htm

If Congress has violated the 14th amendment, it's up to the Executive to remedy or to take Congress to court. Obama is acting as though capitulation is his only option. That's bs.

[Fearless]

7. Can't... won't... details details.

[leveymg]

8. Really likes to keep 'em guessing, doesn't he?

He is not the guy I would want to draw as a partner at the poker table.

[No Elephants]

82. Meh. Once I fell out of love, I found he's pretty easy to read. Of course, that applies to people

he plays against, as well as to his partners. I'll let you decide which group is which.

[valerief]

10. He can start a war on his own, if he wants, though. nt

[PoliticAverse]

16. "Drone raises debt-limit"... n/t

[valerief]

25. Ha! That'll do it! nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. Wait a damn minute here.

He says he can't do it on his own.

Then he says Congress has to be the ones to raise the ceiling.

But he keeps Reid and Pelosi and the Dem leadership out of the talks he is having with Boner about resolving the debt ceiling issue.

That makes no sense.
What am I missing here?

[PoliticAverse]

18. The assumption that democrats will vote in favor of any plan Obama works out with Boehner ? n/t

[FBaggins]

21. It would only take a few if Republicans supported it.

Assuming we're getting shafted as badly as we fear and the far right doesn't kill it in the House.

[libmom74]

19. Double speak.

He doesn't want to invoke the 14th amendment because then he can't push through his grand compromise.

[DURHAM D]

37. Bingo. Here we have a winner.

[No Elephants]

84. Political cover. "Republicans left me no choice but to {do what I had wanted to do all along}."

I believe Republicans have finally grokked that since the lame duck and therefore push him further and further in these "compromises" than even he wants to go.

[russspeakeasy]

38. You are not missing anything.. All this bullshit is designed to

frustrate all of us so that we will just be glad to have it over..kinda like waterboarding.:smoke:

[No Elephants]

86. I liken it to serial vaccinations. Every time you hear the bad news, it's like

a vaccination. You get a little sick, but also a little immunized. That's when we get the denial or angry or "take to the streets" posts. Then we get another vaccination, er, news leak from unnamed WH sources. And again. And again. And again.

Then, by the time it actually becomes a reality, you're totally immune and over it.

That's when we get the "No surprise" posts. And, by then, everyone, including the administration, has gathered together every possible rationalization and excuse. So, at a minimum, there's plausible deniability that Obama is indeed playing chess--against traditional Democrats.

[dixiegrrrrl]

103. hmmm....yes, now that I look back at the Health Care issue

and the Libyan sneak invasion,
and..........
good analogy.

[grahamhgreen]

62. Excellent point!

[Tiggeroshii]

22. Wasn't he a Constitutional Law professor?

I feel like he'd know without having to consult his attorneys. Just sayin'...

[libmom74]

23. Yep. I smell a lie (again).

[former9thward]

39. So no matter what the issue Obama is supposed to have the

complete knowledge of the Constitution, plus the court and historical precedents, plus its legislative history. Any lawyer would be :rofl: at your post. Just sayin'....

[creeksneakers2]

42. That's what I was thinking

I can't believe that anybody who knew anything about the law could take this 14th Amendment hoax seriously even for a second. When Obama said he asked lawyers about it he created the impression that he was considering unlawfully seizing power and undertaking unlawful act. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP talk radio scammers pick up on this to further their nonsense about Obama wanting to be a dictator.

[No Elephants]

87. He has a different day job now. I don't fault him for not spending his time in a law library.

[Ian David]

24. He needs us all to clap our hands and say, "I do believe! I do believe in the debt ceiling!" n/t

[izquierdista]

26. A good lawyer could make a persuasive argument

One more thing, good lawyers are supposed to be good negotiators, aren't they?

[No Elephants]

88. A good lawyer could make a persuasive argument on either side of an issue, unless

the Supreme Court decided the issue. See Perry v. U.S.

I believe the only way skilled lawyers could have advised Obama that the 14th amendment issue was a loser would be to ASSUME that the SCOTUS would overrule Perry v. U.S.

[dflprincess]

27. His lawyers also tell him war criminals shouldn't be prosecuted

His legal advisors aren't any more impressive than his financial ones.

[pam4water]

31. You can't look behind you with no spine.. or something ;)

[No Elephants]

89. Did he say that? I thought that was a political decision he had made on his own.

[pam4water]

30. Cross out authority and put in backbone :P

[No Elephants]

90. No, he has ample authority. I don't think he lacks backbone, either.

I think he is doing what he has wanted to do all along, but claiming Republicans left him no choice but to do it.

See the Obama tax cuts, done during the lame duck session, allegedly done because Republicans left him no choice when they traded him one lone unemployment extension. I very much doubt Republicans would have voted against that extension anyway.

However, he still had a huge majority in the House and 59 in the Democratic caucus. And I think Brown values his Massachusetts seat too much to have risked it on denying one lone unemployment extension. At a minimum, I think he would have voted for cloture, if not for the extension.

And, I think Lieberman would have done the same. Contrary to popular belief (or mythology), Lieberman does not vote with the Republican caucus on all issues.

A lot of what Obama does makes perfect sense, as long as you remember that, even during his primary campaign (as opposed to the general), he named Reagan is one of his top ten favorite Presidents ever.

Of course, Reagan was somewhat to Obama's left overall (note: not on each issue--Obama does want re-election--but overall), but that is a discussion for another thread.

[bvar22]

32. Is this the NEW "Lieberman made me do it" excuse?

President Obama had NO trouble finding lawyers to give the big OK to his new WAR in Libya without Congressional Approval.
Where are those lawyers now?

WAR in Libya without Congressional Approval
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8




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

[locahungaria]

33. I think they must be back on the buffet table. n/t

[Lorien]

34. He needs new lawyers. nt

[No Elephants]

dupe

[No Elephants]

91. Either that, or his current lawyers need different marching orders.

I suspect it's the latter.

[Vidar]

35. Call the debt crisis a threat to national security--which it is.

Then use the some of those vague, unlimited powers granted the President under the Patriot Act to raise the debt ceiling. If the Republicans piss and moan name then terrorist suspects & ship 'em off to Gitmo. Might as well do something useful with that dreadful piece of legislation.

[roamer65]

46. Delete.

[Fool Count]

36. Thank you. That ridiculous "14th amendment" business

needed to be put to rest ASAP.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Fool Count]

49. Except this one could have done real damage to US and world

economy if left unaddressed.

[No Elephants]

92. LOL. The Constitutional lecturer had to seek advice from his lawyers, but

you are sure, without having done any legal research whatever, that the 14th amendment issue is nonsense?

[freshwest]

44. Thanks for the explanation and your sig line. Both true.

[No Elephants]

93. So many minds to read, so little time.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

47. So evertime Boner walks away he comes back to a better deal? SUCKER!

[roamer65]

48. Soon we will see true power of the Federal Reserve.

It is going to surprise a lot of people.

[Recursion]

51. Treasury easement is of course possible

But, damn, that's going to make QE1 and QE2 look like lending my buddy $5 for a beer...

[alp227]

58. two words: EXECUTIVE ORDER n/t

[humblebum]

59. Exactly. And as a last resort, Obama can use the 14th Amendment

even though the act would be somewhat equivocal. If he does raise the debt limit, it is a done deal theoretically, because Congress will then have no choice but to address how to cover the higher debt ceiling that has been created. "The validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned." It will be there to be dealt with. However, what happens to Obama in 2012 is anyone's guess.

[PATRICK]

60. The GOP has painted themselves

into one corner and Obama, to try to keep the game opened tries to paint himself into another. However, his rational response is weak compared to their mulish hardness. So, with all the other Magna Carta and Constitutional niceties he has waved away to keep Bush practices expanding he can't save the world because of his uncertain legal experts? We are expected to believe there are only varied types of insanity allowed in DC and that somehow they will all Kumbaya together to keep the lights lit?

The MSM is also feeding this "insoluble" meme. If Obama is refusing to be in the trap while acknowledging its right to be taken seriously, what exactly will he do when, not if, the magic hour arrives? Considering how he ducked much clearer committments it would seem there is a lot of wiggle room to make an emergency stand by the wording of the Constitution.

And let SCOTUS decide whether they want to crash their own stock options.

[grahamhgreen]

61. Obama wouldn't wipe his bum without permission from the repubs.

[area51]

81. +1 n/t

[jzodda]

78. So Obama chooses default if there is no deal over 14th amendment?

That's nuts! Raise the debt ceiling, fight over the issue in Court but at least it buys us time from defaulting and tanking a weak economy.

Who cares what his lawyers tell him. If there is no deal what option is there?

[No Elephants]

94. Lawyers try very hard to reach the conclusion their client wants them to reach, esp. if their client

is the POTUS. See Professor Yoo and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bybee.

I assume that something of the magnitude of President Obama's Constitutional duties required carefully researched and reasoned written legal opinions, not an off the top of the head answer that the President could not read, analyze and evaluate for himself, he having had enough training to be able to do so, as well as a good mind.

Inasmuch as President Obama has waived the attorney client privilege by letting us know he consulted lawyers and even telling us what they opined to him, I think he should name those lawyers and publish their opinions.

[struggle4progress]

95. Good: he would have been gobsmacked in court if he had tried that one.

[No Elephants]

96. And you base that on....? Besides, the remedy would have been to act, not to sue.

ETA: Even assuming the House or all Republicans in Congress dared sue him over this, and further assuming he lost the suit, so what? Not as though he'd be put in jail or have to pay anyone anything.

[struggle4progress]

109. The Constitution explicitly gives the power of the purse to the House, a fact

discussed, not only by the framers, but by considerably many people since; it does not grant the power of the purse to the President, as his lawyers now seem to have informed him unambiguously; this is a clear balance of powers issue

And there's often no political upside to getting gobsmacked in court

[bvar22]

98. Yeah. That would have been as bad as trying to argue...

...that he didn't need Congressional Approval to start a new WAR in Libya.
Good thing he didn't try THAT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8