Debt-limit standoff: Top Democrats revive 14th Amendment option to raise ceiling

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

As lawmakers struggle to resolve the debt crisis, a growing number of observers wonder whether President Obama has one last trump card at his disposal: ignoring the debt ceiling altogether.

Top Democrats are reviving an argument — one that has arisen several times — that the White House could invoke the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval.

“Is there anything that prohibits him from doing that?” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told the newspaper The Hill. “The answer is no.”

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has described it as the least bad option if Congress doesn’t act.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/debt-limit-standoff-top-democrats-revive-14th-amendment-option-to-raise-ceiling/2011/07/29/gIQAnsr2hI_story.html

---

White House comment line: [phone]

[sasha031]

1. k/r rec.I will call 1st thing am

[PonyJon]

40. What constitutional issue?

Just do it. His (Obama's) popularity will soar. As always the Washington Post is just stupid.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

2. Would selling the oil in the strategic reserve give us any help?

and could it not be done in a day.

[Yupster]

4. Yes it would help

The US could also sell its shares in AIG, and other companies they own stock in.

[Kennah]

3. A Constitutional bitchslap would be delicious

[No Elephants]

12. We should know. We've been on the receiving end often enough.

[tavalon]

60. Amen

[Cool Logic]

5. Mystifying...the revival of something that does not exist...

If the President endeavored to usurp Congressional jurisdiction from the Congress, it stands to reason that he could face impeachment.

[bananas]

6. Worse case, we get President Joe Biden

Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.
Obama can go down in history as the President who let the crazies drive the country into default,
or he can go down in history as the President who gave in to the crazies,
or he can go down in history as the President who saved the country from the crazies.

[left on green only]

8. Even Bill Clinton Faced Impeachment

But that doesn't mean that they "got" him on it. Nor do I believe that they would ever "get" pres. Obama on it, if he were to invoke the fourteenth amendment in order to fund our government.

It seems to me that you are easily mystified and that you are as well prone to speak very easily in terms of absolutes. I am not so sure that absolutes even exist, let alone deserve to be applied in this instance.

[Cool Logic]

33. "I am not so sure that absolutes even exist,"

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 arbitrary, irrational, or emotional.

[plumbob]

38. No familiarity with classical rhetoric? Here's the basis for the legal system.

We the People of the United States,in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now what is objectively valid about "tranquility"? "Defense?" "General welfare?" "Blessings of liberty?" "to ourselves and our Posterity?"

Classical rhetoric, which all the founders were trained in, calls for three classes of persuasion - logos, pathos, and ethos. Logic, passion, and ethics form the three legs of your rhetorical stool and make for effective rhetoric.

"Pure" logic would result in the following: Tranquility means genocide. Nothing more peaceful and tranquil than people buried in the ground with grass growing on top; the more we kill, the more tranquil things become.

"Defense" means eradicating everyone who is not us. See "tranquility."

"General welfare" has no meaning in only logic. Only each person has welfare, and each is different and unique, according to value systems and resources available. So throw this out as meaningless, if you are only going to use logic.

"Blessings of Liberty" is an obvious emotional appeal, so throw it out, too.

What's left? A government dedicated to killing everyone who is not like us AND to killing as many of us to meet the conflicting goals of tranquility and defense.

Take out ethics, you get Bush. Take out emotions, you get HAL. Not too good, either way.

[No Elephants]

69. The POTUS has the constitutional power AND DUTY to pay the obligations of the U.S. as and when they

come due, as required by the 14th amendment. See Replies 9, 13 and 14.

I have yet to see from you one citation or one bit of reasoning to support your assertion to the contrary. So, it would seem it is your statements that have been driven by feeling, rather than by applicable law.

[Cool Logic]

80. Citations and reasoning...however, they require the ability to comprehend.

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; as defined by the Constitution, which separates spending and borrowing in section 7, and section 8.

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

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.

The 14th Amendment does not repeal or modify Article 1 and Article 2. If you thoroughly study the Constitution, you will note that he official text of the Constitution notes the places in which amendments to the original text supersede it. For example, the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery and the framers of that amendment went back to the sections that were amended and inserted parenthetical notices of the change.

[No Elephants]

88. Reasoning is exactly what you are not applying.

You are simply saying this and that is so. For example:

"The power to borrow is delegated to the Congress in Article 1;"

True.


"accordingly, the Congress must publish, ratify and have signed into law, legislation that authorizes the borrowing."


No, that part, you simply made up. Pulling something from your ear is not reasoning.


If Congress authorizes an obligation, the President has Executive power to pay that obligation. That is always the way that it has been done. Not only does he have Executive Power, he has a statutory and Constitutional obligation to pay it. He has no authority to refuse to pay it. Neither does Congress. See Perry v. U.S.

Even if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling--an artifice not required by the Constitution, by the way, that does not relieve the President of his duty to make payment. Whether he prints money or borrows, he must still defend and protect the Constitution.

[Cool Logic]

90. You failed to address the fact that the14th Amendment does not repeal or modify Article 1

or Article 2.

If you thoroughly study the Constitution, you will note that he official text of the Constitution notes the places in which amendments to the original text supersede it. For example, the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery and the framers of that amendment went back to the sections that were amended and inserted parenthetical notices of the change

[No Elephants]

92. Of course it didn't repeal them. Why would I "address" something that self evident?

I don't assume I am posting to someone who would think anything that ludicrous.

Where did I say anything about repeal of anything? Why are you knocking yourself out proving something no one questioned?

However, the 14th Amendment did impose a new obligation on the federal government, namely to pay obligations incurred pursuant to laws of Congress as and when they come due. And, Congress is without power to renege on those obligations.

And it is the job of the Executive Branch to pay those obligations. Also the sworn duty of the Executive to defend and protect every provision of the Constitution, including the 14th amendment.

[Cool Logic]

100. It didn't modify them either...

In review:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

[No Elephants]

101. No one said that either. Think you'll run out of straw men soon?

And I've already addressed those provisions, so you can stop repeating them unless you have something new to say about them.

[The Doctor.]

136. Hmmm... well done.

Tick... Tock...

[No Elephants]

70. Dupe.

[Odin2005]

137. The Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it means, nothing more.

The PTB that own the politicians get the justices they want, and thus the legal decisions they want.

Constitutions are irrelevant, only the economic power relationships show who really runs things, regardless of what constitutions say.

[JDPriestly]

9. If Republicans impeach Obama, voters will see them as

poor losers -- the party that impeaches any president who is not one of its own.

The pertinent parts of text of the 14th Amendment are

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.

Section 5.

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

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

In Section 5, Congress was granted the power to enforce the 14th Amendment, but it's hard to say what the Supreme Court would rule if the President paid the bills without additional congressional action since Section 4 appears to suggest that the bills must be paid.

Does the 5th Section of the 14th Amendment limit the power to enforce Section 4 to Congress?

It may depend on how soon the members of the Supreme Court want to get paid

[No Elephants]

14. Those are not the only relevant provisions of the Constitution.

Section 5 of Amend. 14 was nothing new. Article I of the Constitution had already provided that ALL the legislative power of the U.S. is vested in Congress. That Congress is the legislative branch was no surprise to anyone.

However, the President's paying bills to avoid violating the 14th amendment does not require him to pass legislation.

Would it violate the debt ceiling already enacted by Congress? I don't know, but it's irelevant as the SCOTUS has already held that Congress has no power to pass legislation that reneges on the obligations of the U.S.

Other relevant provisions of the Constitution


Bookmark and Share Email
Article II
Section 1.

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

<snip>

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"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."


The Constitution cannot fairly be read as requiring the President to swear to do something the Constitution does not give him power to do. Hence, defending and protecting the Constitution must be within his power as chief executive of the U.S. And, the Department of the Treasury is within the Executive Branch, so he, and not Congress, gives the orders to Treasury.

Does Congress have the power of the deciding what does and does not get spent? Yes, but it does not have power to renege on obligations of the U.S. created pursuant to prior acts of Congress. That is the holding of the SCOTUS Perry v. U.S.

Might Perry be overruled today? Maybe, but Obama cannot go on that assumption. As he sits in the Oval Office today, Perry v. U.S. is the law of the land on a provision of the Constitution.

[Kolesar]

19. thx eom

[JDPriestly]

23. It's worth a try.

The president and Congress could also review some of the specific government contracts awarded.

Here is a list of contracts awarded or announced on 07/29/11.

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4588

Here is just one example of the kinds of things US taxpayer money is spent on that may not really be in the interest of the taxpayers.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/northrop-wins-141-million-follow-contract-dod-biometric-system

Why should our military need a biometric identification system of this kind? Is it really a priority at a time when our country doesn't have the money to pay its debts?

And if we really need a biometric identification system, why not have people directly employed by the US government do the work? Why allow the knowledge about how such a system works be done by a private country?

Remember when Halliburton just up and left the US after having been entrusted with the most important military information our country possesses?

We should be conducting some cost/benefit studies on whether privatization has saved or cost the American taxpayers. I bet that privatization has cost us more than it has saved.

And Congress should comb through government contracts to end those that are not necessary before cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Max Keiser raised the issue of the huge sums of money we spend on private prisons. I need to listen to his video again, but I think he said that the U.S. spends more on prisons than on Social Security benefits.

Instead of spending weeks wrangling over raising the debt ceiling, Congress should be reviewing some of the specific contracts that are we can no longer afford in this recession/depression.

[woolldog]

118. The problem with your view

is that borrowing isn't the only recourse the President has for paying off debts. The debt ceiling makes it harder for the Preside t to fulfill his constitutional obligations but it doesn t make it impossible.

[KansDem]

20. "If Republicans impeach Obama, voters will see them as poor losers"

Precisely!

It will appear (and rightfully so) that the only thing the Republicans can do is impeach Democratic presidents.

The only thing...

They will appear to be not only losers, but hateful and spiteful...and incapable of governing in a democracy.

GOP = "Gang Of imPeachers"

[creeksneakers2]

55. I think once the public understands the issue

They'd want Obama impeached too. Selling bonds without authorization would be a severe violation of the law.

[No Elephants]

85. He can print money; and for reasons stated in many replies of mine on this thread,

incl. Replies 13 and 14, the only violation of law would have been committed by Congress. See Perry v. U.S.

However, if the POTUS does NOT fulfill HIS Constitutional duties under the 14th amendment, then he, too, will have violated the 14th amendment, right along with Congress

[Cool Logic]

123. "and incapable of governing in a democracy."

I certainly hope that Democrats are incapable of governing in a democracy" as well.

Article 4 - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

[Cool Logic]

26. Regrettably, you skipped the part that matters.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

The President does not have the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

[blueclown]

42. The President isn't borrowing money.

The money has already been "borrowed", or appropriated, by Congress already.

[Cool Logic]

46. 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; as defined by the Constitution, which separates spending and borrowing in section 7, and section 8.

[No Elephants]

78. Congress enacts the obligation that requires the borrowing; the Executive Branch does the borrowing

to meet that obligation or prints money to meet that obligation. That is the way it works. Always has.


"Spending and borrowing are separate and apart..."

Um, no. Borrowing is not done in a vacuum. It is done to pay for obligations Congress incurred by enacting legislation under it's spending power. Once it incurs an obligation, the federal government has a Constitutional duty to pay the obligation, per the 14th amendment.

[Cool Logic]

84. If they are not separate and apart, why do they require "separate and apart" legislation?

[No Elephants]

86. They don't.

[Cool Logic]

94. Why then, did Congress pass separate leglislation that authorized the $14.3 trillion

of existing debt?

Surely, it wasn't simply to practice their legislating skills.

[No Elephants]

102. The fact that Congress chooses to do something doesn't mean Congress is required to do it.

The Constitution says nothing about a debt ceiling. You might want to google and see how it actually came about.

But, in any case, it is not required.

If it were, you would be able to point me to a Constitutional provision that requires it and none exists.

Again, any law of Congress that results in a violation of the 14th amendment is invalid. And Congress has no authority to enact such a law, even if Congress has legislative power.

[Cool Logic]

112. Okay, you assume that they did because they needed the practice.

On the other hand, they may have done it because that is what the law (Constitution) requires. Clearly, the application of logic and reason, leads one to conclude the latter.

Section 7 authorizes Congress to enact SPENDING LEGISLATION

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

Clause 1 - All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Clause 2 - Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it...


Section 8 authorizes Congress to enact BORROWING LEGISLATION

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

Clause 1 - 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;

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

[harmonicon]

45. Cogress has already borrowed the money - no one disputes that. nt.

[Cool Logic]

If, as you say, "Cogress has already borrowed the money"

we wouldn't be having this debate. :think:

[harmonicon]

48. "debate", my ass.

I responded to you further down in the thread about your circular logic. This is - and always has been - about kicking a black president whenever and however possible. That's all.

[Cool Logic]

50. No, it's about political posturing and Democrats & Republicans are all experts at that game.

Record of the Senate Vote to Raise the Debt Limit in 2006

[creeksneakers2]

56. Congress authorized $14.3 trillion in borrowing

Obama wants more. All above $14.3 trillion would be new borrowing, not authorized.

[joshcryer]

72. Congress has authorized more than $14.3 trillion in finanical authorizations.

While at the same time not authorizing the debt ceiling.

It's just like with the War Powers Act. They were too cowardly to actually stop Obama from acting in Libya (indeed, it would've taken the Republican congress all of 10 minutes to do it). Instead they voted twice. The first time they voted on "shall authorize" poll that they would not authorize, then they, hilarious, voted no to a "shall not authorize" vote. Basically they voted not to authorize and not to not authorize! Can you imagine! And yet Obama gets shit for their cowardly, despicable political games.

[No Elephants]

81. The obligations have been authorized.

You cannot simply say that the President has no powerto pay obligations already incurred by Congress, be they to China or to U.S. veterans. Nonpayment would violate the 14th amendment, which the President has sworn to defend and protect. That being the case, he has Executive Power to avoid default on those obligations that Congress has already authorized

Congress is without power to forbid borrowing to pay those obligations, whether by a debt ceiling that does not allow payment or otherwise. See Perry v. United States.

[creeksneakers2]

126. I've seen Perry v US

Congress doesn't forbid borrowing. Its starts out forbidden until they authorize it.

Nobody is telling the president not to pay. They just haven't given him the money to do it. Those are two separate issues. You cannot conclude the president can do anything he wants when Congress fails. Congress is the body that has to come up with a remedy, not the president.

[No Elephants]

13. Actually, it does exist and impeachment is highly unlikely.

Republicans remember all too well how Clinton's impeachment cost them a couple of House seats (resignations) and lowered their approval rating while Clinton's soared.

And that was over adultery, not "saving" Social Security and Medicare.

I find it funny that DUers know more than members of Congress and their attorneys. Hell, even Sen. Grassley said the 14th amendment might require Congress to make good on its obligations. Said he hadn't looked into yet, but I call bullshit on that proviso.

Why on earth would he say something that favored Obama's power before he (or people he trusts) looked into it? Much more in character to say, "I haven't looked into yet, but I doubt the 14th amendment applies in this situation."

[Cool Logic]

28. "...Grassley said the 14th amendment might require Congress to make good on its obliga

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.

[No Elephants]

68. I have no idea what your post means. However, "default" means failing to pay

the obligations of the U.S., as and when they come due, not only interest on bonds. Perry v. U.S. had nothing to do with interest on bonds.

[Cool Logic]

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

That was about looting the American People's gold.

[No Elephants]

89. No, it was about Congress trying to renege on an obligation arising under a law Congress had

previously enacted and has a lot to do with this matter.

[Cool Logic]

91. Yes, the Constitution says we have to meet our obligations (existing debt)

But the Constitution does not say to meet them with further borrowing. It clearly leaves that decision in the hands of the Legislative Branch.

As I previously noted, Obama understands this--you do not.

[No Elephants]

93. Actually, it doesn;t clearly say what you claim.

You are assuming that Congress can enact laws obligating the U.S. then deny the Executive the ability to pay those obligations, that being Chief Executive means pretty much nothing, no powers, express or implied. That the Executive has a sworn duty to defend and protect the Constitution, but no implied power to do so. I don't think you have any rational basis for those assumptions.

[Cool Logic]

96. "the Executive has a sworn duty to defend and protect the Constitution,..."

So does the Legislature.

[No Elephants]

99. The Constitution requires the oath only of the President.

The Legislature can choose to take an oath. So can I. Neither choice has anything to do with the Constitution. So, I stand on my prior post, which you have not addressed, other than with an irrelevancy.

[Cool Logic]

103. My friend, you have some reading to catch up on. Clearly, your copy is missing some pages

I urge you to acquire a complete copy of the Constitution. For the lack thereof, is most likely the cause of your ignorance regarding its meaning.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

Clause 3 - The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[No Elephants]

104. Where does it say defend and protect?

[HankyDubs]

16. learn to read

then check the 14th amendment. And please, I encourage all the lurkers, trolls and teabaggers to pressure your reps to impeach him for doing his duty and preventing disaster. It will be a totally pointless excercize and would probably be a big help for his 2012 campaign.

[Cool Logic]

29. Learn to comprehend and reason...

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.

[caseymoz]

66. So, why did Obama ever negotiate with Repubs to begin with?

The maddening thing about the debt limit is that it's a rule Congress made for itself, not a law. In all truth, Congressional dems can invoke the 14th Amendment and still submit individual bills for borrowing and see if they'll pass. They can argue that the ceiling itself is unconstitutional. It's simply that the President can't have the authority to borrow.

However, since the President doesn't even have any spending authority, what was Obama ever doing negotiating with the Repubs to begin with? He's the leader of his party, but he's not in Congress. Congressional democrats should have been negotiating. He should have been behind the scenes. By putting himself into this, Obama has ensured that he's soiled by this crisis when this skunk-turkey should really be all theirs.

Obama is not the eleven-dimensional chess player. He's a one-dimensional fool. If he had paid attention to what Repub propaganda said about him he would know he, the Dems, the country, and yes, the world, had absolutely nothing to gain and a lot to lose by putting himself in the forefront of these negotiations.

And look at what he was willing to give away! Seriously, that's why he thought he could strike a deal because he thought he had an offer that couldn't refuse.

I don't know how badly Repubs are going to be hurt, and they will be, but Obama is a one-term President. I'd say McConnell will get his wish. All he had to do was impoverish five hundred million people around the world to do it.

[No Elephants]

71. See Replies 13 and 14.

This is borrowing (or printing money) to pay obligations of the U.S. incurred solely pursuant to laws passed by Congress.

Any law passed by Congress that purports to say that those obligations should not or cannot be paid as and when they come due, including a debt ceiling bill, violates the 14th amendment. Hance, Congress has no authority to pass such a law. That is the holding of Perry v. U.S.

And a law passed without authority is null and void, leaving the President his Constitutional obligation to defend and protect clause 5 of the 14th amendment, as interpreted by the SCOTUS in Perry v. U.S.

[Cool Logic]

82. If the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to amend Article 1,

which delegates the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States" to the Congress, why did they not note it in the official text and identify it as an amendment to article 1?

[No Elephants]

95. You are the only one saying anything about repeal.

You seem unable to accept that ALL provisions of the Constitution work together to make sense as a whole. Therefore, there seems to be little point trying to explain my reasoning yet again.

It requires someone with the ability to connect the dots from one provision and concept to another, to understand that imposing a duty to pay means you are also granting the power to pay. To reason, not just read.

Either you have those ability* or not.

Edited to add. That should be "abilities."

[Cool Logic]

107. The post to which you replied, did not include the word "repeal."

However, you are implying that the 14th Amendment, amends Article 2, and delegates the power to "borrow money on the credit of the United States," to the Executive Branch.

It is not possible to apply reason and reach that conclusion.

[No Elephants]

110. Actually, I;ve been saying pay the bills Congress has run up so as not to violate the

Constitution. And I have also said at least five times, he can print money or borrow. I can't help it if you see only "borrow."

And, yes, it is very possible to apply reason to say that a Constitutional duty to defend and protect the Constitution, including the 14th amendment, implies the power to do whatever must be done to get the money to pay the bills.

I don't think it's possible to apply reason and reach the conclusion that the Constitution requires the President to to let Congress make him violate the 14th amendment when the Constitution obligates him to defend and protect the 14th amendment.

[Cool Logic]

114. "Printing," opens up an entirely different can of worms. For you are now

entering the realm of the Federal Reserve. (The Constitutionality of that system is entirely different subject)

Even so, printing (coin) money is also delegated to the Congress. Again, Article 2 says nothing about Executive power to print, or coin money.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

Clause 5 - To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

[HankyDubs]

115. the house has authority over spending

but this isn't spending. This is honoring debts on money that has already been spent. It's well within his authority to avert disaster. I defy you to find the portion of article 1 that gives congress the authority to default on debts already incurred. I defy you to find the phrase "debt ceiling" anywhere in the US constitution.

The 14th was intended to guarantee that the debts of the US government would be paid so long as the entity itself existed. That's what it says.

[Cool Logic]

117. "but this isn't spending." Indeed, it is borrowing.

The question on the table relates to additional borrowing, which requires additional legislation from the Congress.

Default, as it applies the US Treasury, entails 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 phrase "debt ceiling" is irrelevant. If the bonds have not been authorized, the money has not been borrowed. If the money has not been borrowed, it stands to reason, that it hasn't been spent.

Conclusion: Money that has not been spent, is not a public debt that "shall not be questioned."

[HankyDubs]

120. in fact it is not borrowing either

it is simply raising the maximum amount that may be borrowed.

The money under the imaginary and unconstitutional ceiling has already been borrowed and spent. All that $$$ is already owed, and a considerable amount above and beyond that imaginary "ceiling" figure is owed as well. Hence the term "default."

The phrase is irrelevant? Well tell me then, if that specific wording is not used, where else you find that congress has the authority to decide not to pay bills already incurred.

[Cool Logic]

121. If you mean below, I agree that "the money under the...ceiling has already been borrowed and spent."

The bonds issued to acquire that money, must be serviced, for it is a public debt.

Well tell me then, if that specific wording is not used, where else you find that congress has the authority to decide not to pay bills already incurred?

Nowhere--I cannot find, what does not exist. However, I can find where Congress has the authority to decide whether or not to incur additional bills.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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

[creeksneakers2]

127. There is a debt ceiling in the Constitution

Its Article One that gives borrowing authority to Congress. Do you think they just pass a bill that allows the president to borrow money infinitely?

[trud]

21. Cool Logic

You mean, like when they impeached him for starting the war with Libya in violation of the War Powers Act?

[Cool Logic]

30. Point taken...however...

Congress has hidden behind the War Powers Resolution for nearly 40 years. It allows them to put one foot in the water and if things get too hot, they can elude the blame and leave the President standing alone.

[JCMach1]

36. Not to mention the War Powers Act itself may be unconstitutional

It's just that no one has EVER wanted to test that theory.

[Cool Logic]

44. I believe that it is un-Constitutional...the reason Congress hasn't "tested that theory..."

is because it permits them to shirk their responsibility which calls for the American People's Representatives to decide matters of war.

The power to declare war was vested in the Congress to ensure a rational contemplation of the grievances, as well as the projected cost of lives and resources of the People.

Regrettably, the legitimate process of declaring war has been disregarded and as a result, we have engaged in a number of wars against nations that did not attack us. These unnecessary and illegal wars are one of the primary reasons we are having this debate regarding the debt ceiling.

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

[trumad]

24. Bring it!

[Enrique]

25. no, it means the Congress really doesnt have that jurisdiction

the Congress under the constitution doesnt haved the authority to force the country into default.

[Cool Logic]

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

The US Treasury, must pay the interest on the bonds, and pay off the bonds that have reached maturity.

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.

[Enrique]

34. the President isn't borrowing anytthing

this is about paying back the money the Congress already borrowed.

[Cool Logic]

35. The only " money the Congress already borrowed"

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.

[harmonicon]

47. .... but following your logic runs into a vicious circle:

If you say that it's the treasury that issues these bonds, and that the money hasn't been borrowed until then, then it is the treasury and not congress which has that power. Which is it? Clearly the treasury issuing bonds and the president raising the debt ceiling are both related tangentially to congress authorizing the borrowing of this money. If you think the president doing this is unconstitutional, you must also think that the treasury is somehow, paradoxically, unconstitutional - no?

[Cool Logic]

49. It's not a "vicious circle" at all...

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

As you pointed out, Treasury is a deparment of the Executive Branch; however, the Executive Branch is not authorized to issue bonds (borrow), without the aforementioned authorization from the Legislative Branch.

[harmonicon]

57. And as many people have pointed out to you:

This is all about borrowing funds that this congress has already authorized. The entire point of this is that it is anti-constitutional to not pay for this. You seem to want it both ways. There may well be a legal case to be made for your position. We'll see if that has to be done or not. However, your reasoning does seem to be paradoxical to me.

[creeksneakers2]

128. You can make a good case that Congress is violating

the Constitution. It doesn't follow from that that the president can start breaking the law. I don't know any way Congress can be forced to authorize borrowing.

[creeksneakers2]

62. The Treasury issues bonds that are authorized by Congress

It can't issue bonds that aren't authorized.

[No Elephants]

79. That is not true simply because you say it is.

[Cool Logic]

83. No, it is true...and legal, because the Constitution says it is.

[No Elephants]

97. No, the Constitution doesn't say that.

[No Elephants]

73. The 14th amendment is not limited to borrowing. Perry v. U.S.

[naaman fletcher]

58. good post..

it is distressing to see so many people cling to such an absurd notion that the constitution requires that we go into more debt. it's nuts on its face.

[Cool Logic]

75. distressing...It is, indeed. It is not clear to me why so many people are willing

to abandon the American system of checks and balances that has for the most part, worked well over the course of our history.

IMO, we no longer have "a goverment of the people, for the people, and by the people." We have a government of, for, by, and two political parties.

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. ~ John Adams

[No Elephants]

98. You're the one abandoning it.

You are saying that Congress may purport to force the President into a corner, where he has no choice but to violate the Constitution, just as they are violating it. Some of us are saying that is patently false. That the President has not only the power but the duty to check Congress in that Constitutional violation.

You, however, are insisting Congress has all the power, including the power to endgame the Chief Executive of the United States into violating the Constitution and he has now power to do anything about that, despite his oath.

[Fool Count]

135. Even more absurdly, they claim that the Constitution

somehow requires that the President violated that very Constitution. It's just totally nuts. It's like claiming that there is a clause
in the constitution which makes adhering to it optional and voluntary. If that was the framers' intent, why didn't they just add
an article stating: "To defend this Constitution the President has a right to violate any and all of its provisions at his full discretion"?
Then why limit himself to usurping just one congressional power? Why not usurp them all if that's what it takes to avoid "questioning"
the debt? Why don't the President increase taxes by decree using the same argument? And why is only the President allowed to usurp
powers of other branches? Why can't the Congress or Supreme Court usurp presidential powers to defend the constitution?

It is ridiculous on its face. The fact that so many intelligent people, including some constitutional law professors, have succumbed to
this delusion is just an illustration of the level of political debate this country has sunk to.

[No Elephants]

76. Actually, he can borrow or print money, if necessary to avoid default

of obligations Congress authorized in prior laws, such as Social Security and veteran's benefits.

If a board of directors of a company orders the President to buy something, that means the President of the company has to find a way to pay for it or default on the obligation of the company to pay. Same is true of the legislative branch and the executive branch.

The legislative branch has said "The U.S. shall pay this and that to people over a certain age, to disabled people, to veterans, etc. That means Congress obligated the U.S. to make those payment and the people named are entitled to receive those payments, as and when Congress promised. That means the Executive Branch has to cut checks or print money to make that happen, if Congress refuses to do so.

So far, Congress has been refusing.

[Cool Logic]

87. The trustees of the Social Security trust fund hold $2.6 trillion in Treasury bonds;

thus, additional borrowing is not required to meet that obligation.

However, Congress has not authorized additional borrowing, that is why the President, who, unlike you, respects the Constitution, is waiting for them to do so.

President Obama's actions speak louder than your words.

[No Elephants]

106. I have total respect for the Constitution. That's why I don't want President Obama

to ignore violations or violate it himself.


When Congress enacts a bill requiring payment, it has also implicitly authorized the Executive Branch to make the payments. And, it has also brought into play the 14th amendment requirement that the federal government make the payments, as and when due. The branch of government that actually makes payments is the Executive Branch.

Article II actually means something when it says the President is the executive. He executes many things, including laws of Congress and the Constitution. When the Supreme Court orders something, such as integration of schools, for example, it does not add "and the President shall execute this order." Why? Because that power and that DUTY of the President is in the Constitution.

Again, you don't seem willing to put individual provisions together and read them as a coherent whole, or read our governmental operation as a whole.

[harmonicon]

39. pffft...

No way. Bill Clinton and others have said that this is completely legal and by the book. It was simply never needed before since raising the debt ceiling has always just been done as a matter of course with single-paged bills that passed immediately. The revival of something that does not exist is this "debate" over raising the debt ceiling.

[Cool Logic]

51. "done as a matter of course with single-paged bills that passed immediately"

That's exactly right...and that is why the Executive awaits the passing of that "single-paged bill."

Until that happens, he does not have the authority to direct the Treasury to borrow the money.

[creeksneakers2]

59. Bill Clinton never said it was legal

He said he would do it until the courts stopped him. Recognizing that he'd be stopped by the courts means he knows that it would be illegal.

[No Elephants]

109. He did not recognize that he WOULD be stopped, nor would he openly recommend that a

a Democratic POTUS or any POTUS, do something illegal. That would be highly impolitic, not to mention thug like. Obviously, he meant "unless and until" the courts stopped him.

[No Elephants]

105. Bill Cllinton is only a lawyer (reinstated) and a Rhodes scholar and a brilliant man.

How can he possibly hope to match wits with message board posters?

WE HAVE KEYBOARDS, for pity's sake. Better than degrees.

[SlimJimmy]

122. Bullshit at the speed of light is still bullshit. (nt)

[Blue State Bandit]

43. Bring it on !!!

Has anyone else noticed this? Republicans crow about fiscal responsibility. Nothing new there. And we've all heard about Grover Norquist's bathtub fantasy. But this is new.

The default of the US Government will raise prices on everything. It's been described as a backdoor tax. But it is not payable to the IRS. It doesn't go to funding entitlement programs, road construction, veterans benefits, or law enforcement. It goes to the banks in the form of higher loan interest rates. It goes to insurance companies in the form of higher premiums to insure workers and assets. It goes to airlines (and not the passengers) when the FAA can't collect taxes on ticketing.

Has it occurred to anyone that this may be the reason behind the reason for the Tea Party's intransigence? It's a win/win/win for them.

1) They get what they want at the negotiating table and gut government. Corps step in.
2) They get to force a default. Corps raise interest rates across the board. Riots break out. Corps step in.
3) Either way, Corps step in.

That's not to say that this is it. There is a 4.

4)Add 10. Prepare for Impeachment battle on OUR terms.

We rally behind Obama for being impeached for saving the country, and the fiscal waste of conducting an impeachment, and threaten reopening some cases against the last administration (a boy can dream right?).

Note: 4+10=Constitutional!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1604798

[creeksneakers2]

129. Something they aren't talking about too

How will taking $150 billion a month or so out of the economy affect us economically? I'd think it would be devastating.

[tex-wyo-dem]

53. Oh, they (GOP/teabaggers) will try to impeach, I'm sure...

but there is a strong legal argument for invoking the 14th amendment and I think the crazies would lose that battle. Avoiding economic catastrophe for the country (and world for that matter) can certainly be argued as a matter of national security.

The key will be how the Dems and WH communicate and sell what and why this action was taken to sway public opinion. This, unfortunately, has been their weakness and downfall in the past, largely because the corporate-owned media has typically been no friend of Dem positions. This is a different situation...the last thing the monied interests want to see is the US go into default, so I think they will have Obama's back on this one.

[Cool Logic]

67. I consider your words to be incredibly troubling...

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.

The process you have described, it is not a legal process at all; rather, it is a mobacracy that permits the majority to rule.

The legal process of declaring war has been disregarded and we see what that has given us: Thousands of lives wasted, trillions of $$$ borrowed and squandered.

Now, you are suggesting that we should disregard yet another of our legal fundamentals that are required to keep the three branches of our government in balance. Abandoning the Constitution is what created our $$$ problems--the solution will not be found in it's further abandonment.

Democracy: a government of the masses. Authority derived thru mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in Mobacracy. Attitude toward property is communist - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion. prejudice and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Republic: Authority is derived thru the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobacracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress. Is the standard form of government throughout the world.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[Amonester]

7. Ah. Leadership. Leadership. For (a real) minimum protection of the country.

To be ready to face any adversity that could arise.

For.The.Good.Of.The.Country.And.The.People.

This is not a period to see any interest rates getting jacked-up by the bunch of bailed-out crooks, if you ask me...

Preemptive doctrine in that case, Mr. President.

[JDPriestly]

10. The answer is to stop the legalized tax cheating.

A lot of money hidden in Switzerland to avoid American taxes was discovered a few years ago. I believe a deal was made to forgive some of the tax debts. Every cent of such debt should be collected. If you or I are found not to have paid our full measure of taxes, we are fined. The tax evaders who off-shore money should also be subject to fines.

The percentage of GDP that is paid in taxes is simply too low. It does not cover our bills. Making sure that money is collected is a no-brainer.

[cstanleytech]

11. I doubt he will do it.

Right now the republicans are the ones who have painted themselves into the corner and I dont think he is dumb enough to give them a weapon to use against him and the rest of the dems by bailing their butts out by stepping in and doing the job they swore under oath to do themselves.

[No Elephants]

15. Please see Replies 13 and 14.

As far as giving the Republicans something to use against him, even if that were so, what a disgusting standard by which to lead and govern the United States of America.

I doubt he will perforom his Constitutional duties to defend and protect the 14th Amendment as well, but because I think he wants cuts to things like OASDI, Medicare, Medicaid and fuel subsidies as much as the Republicans do, if not more. The main difference between him and Cantor on this issue is that Cantor wants to take credit for the cuts while Obama wants to say the Republicans left him no choice.

[madokie]

18. Thank you

finally someone with a reasoned voice. I salute you

Edit to add: I'll rec this thread so more will/can read what you've typed.

I personally don't see in the 14th anything that gives the President this authority of using the 14th

[cstanleytech]

63. I didnt say he couldnt do it, i said I doubt he would so how are 13 and 14 relevant?

[florida08]

17. Jeffrey Rosen

Seems to believe POTUS has the authority:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/92884/supreme-court-obama-debt-ceiling

If Obama invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, the most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case. The conservative justices have long required clear evidence of legal “standing” before opening the courthouse door—something they showed in their recent 5-4 decision rejecting a taxpayer’s challenge to an Arizona school vouchers program—and it’s hard to imagine who could establish enough of a legal injury to establish standing in this case. Individual senators and representatives wouldn’t have standing to sue on their own, according to a 1997 Supreme Court precedent, and although the House and Senate could, in theory, pass a joint resolution asserting that the president has injured Congress by usurping its power, they’re unlikely to find the votes to do so. (If the House alone passed a resolution asserting a constitutional injury, its legal status is less certain.)...

It seems a safe bet that all four liberal justices would rule for Obama. There’s a strong argument that Congress’s refusal to raise the debt ceiling falls within the spirit, if not the letter, of the paradigm case that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were concerned about..

What about the conservative justices? Here the divisions in the conservative ranks might become relevant. There are three distinct strains of legal conservatives on the Court: the tea party conservative, Clarence Thomas, the libertarian conservative, Anthony Kennedy, and the pro-executive power conservatives, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia. Of these five justices, Thomas is the only one whose judicial philosophy might lead him to side with Congress over Obama. As someone who believes that Congressional power over the purse should be construed strictly,

I'm sure Obama wants to avoid more infighting though

[creeksneakers2]

64. The House would have standing to sue

and they'd have no problem getting a majority for it.

No justice would rule in favor of Obama, since there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that gives the president the power to issue bonds without authorization from Congress.

If Obama even tried to sell the bonds, which would probably not be possible even if he tried, I'd expect John Boehner to announce that the Republicans would never be a party to redeeming bonds that weren't lawfully issued. Then, who would buy them?

[BadtotheboneBob]

22. Attention: Veterans! If you have Direct Deposit...

... Check your bank account! I received my August compensation today! Early payment happens occasionally, but not very often. Seems the VA sent out the service-cennected compensation due on the 1st early and my bank (PNC) posted it today! The VA non-service connected pensions due on the 3rd are still up in the air, like some SS payments, of course. I know this doesn't have much to do with the article, but I thought I'd try and get the word out ASAP!

[disndat]

27. Obama playing chess to the Republicans

playing checkers? I am wondering if Obama is prolonging this national agony to show how divided the Republicans are as a strategic '12 maneuver.

[KaryninMiami]

32. Link to the Sign the 14th Amendment Petition by Credo

Enough is Enough: Invoke the 14th Amendment and end the crisis

Tell President Obama to use his 14th Amendment powers, raise the debt ceiling without Congress, end this crisis, and tell the House Republicans to go take a hike

http://www.credoaction.com/campaign/invoke_14th_amendment/?rc=LA_14th_07272011_a1

[meow2u3]

65. Just signed

Here's what I wrote to the President:

Don't let the Tea Party crazies whose behavior is more befitting inmates of a mental hospital than members of Congress tell you how to handle the public debts.

[Lorien]

125. Done! nt

[patrice]

37. This is the way to go. The Oppressor is over a barrel. This one is OURS for the TAKING!!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

[readmoreoften]

116. Ooo. More leftist rhetoric stolen by a Wall Street Democrat.

To the barricades!
Si se puede!
Power to the People!
Voting in midterms=REVOLUTION

(When are you going to give up the charade?)

[patrice]

119. You obviously haven't any real information about me. Fact #1, guess what, I'm not your monkey. nt

[elocs]

41. If you have a trump card, an ace in the hole, you don't advertise it.

You keep your mouth shut and wait until you need to use it.

If Obama believes he can use the 14th Amendment he would be stupid to talk about using it himself. Others can do that, but not him. He needs to play it close to the vest.

[Zambero]

52. If the intent of the 14th Amendment was NOT to use it

then it would NOT have been incorporated into in the Constitution. In this instance, it should be invoked, if Congress does not fulfill its duties.

[naaman fletcher]

61. its silly

its silly and embarrassing that people believe this. It simply says that we won't repudiate the debt. That is totally different from saying that, therefore, we have to borrow more. it's nuts on its face.

[No Elephants]

108. No, it doesn't "simply" say we will not repudiate debt. The word "repudiate" is not used.

And if it were all that simple, so many great (and not so great) minds would not be so sharply divided over what it means.

For better or worse, Perry v. U.S. (1935) said it means the Constitution requires the federal government to pay its obligations as and when they come due.

And Perry also says that Congress has no authority to enact a law saying otherwise. So, to the extent that the debt ceiling law purports to disable the Executive Branch from paying the obligations of the U.S. as and when they come due, the debt ceiling law is in violation of the Constitution and void. However, the Executive can also print money to pay the obligations of the U.S.

None of that is either silly, embarrassing or nuts on its face. If it is, Bill Clinton and Senator Harkin and Democratic members of Congress, all of whom either are lawyers or have access to the best Constitutional lawyers and professors in the country, know vastly less than you do about the Constitutional law. So vastly less, in fact, that they take a position that is nuts on its face.

I don't think your knowledgge is superior to theirs, nor do I think that the standard for a position being nuts on its face is naaman fletcher disagrees with that position.

I don't care if you disagree, but you should try to be less disdainful and less disrespectful, especially when you offer no compelling reasoning yourself

[naaman fletcher]

113. Yes it is simple

The government has enough money to pay it's debts. No way in hell the courts will see it otherwise. The raising of the debt ceiling has to do with taking on more debt because it doesn't want to cut anything.

[James48]

54. Forget that- just shut it down.

If they want to shut down the government fine.

Tell them the first layoffs will be the border patrol. Those millions of illegals waiting in mexico for the opportunity to come into red states? No problem- let them in.

Then shut down the FAA and cancel every single flight. Commerce comes to a screeching halt, because of the republican games.

Just shut everything down. I'm ready.

[No Elephants]

111. Me, too. Then again, I eat and keep my home whether or not OASDI checks go out or disabled vets get

their checks.

However, since this has never happened before, no one really know what will happen, aside from the obvious danger to the most vulnerable among us.

Boehner said no one wants to go there (default) because it is therefore a "crap shoot," which is about the most honest thing I think I've heard. True, it came from a weeping yam, but even a weeping yam nails it sometimes.


















h is e wanted to go there.

I have to c

[Liberalynn]

74. If Truman already did it once there is precedence .

Clinton thinks he can do it. Hell even former Republican Alan Specter(not that I like that sexist piece of crap) who was on the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution said he has the right to do it.

He needs to just do it. There is no other acceptable way out.

[creeksneakers2]

131. The Truman story is false

He used the 14th to integrate the military. There never was a debt limit increase at all under Truman. See Politifact.

[Liberalynn]

132. My bad I had heard Ed Schultz

say Truman had used it on his program and I believed him. Have since learned it was false. My apologies. :blush:

[Lorien]

124. The DU "experts" who are trying to cover for Obama's reluctance to let the cuts

on SS and Medicare slip by will say that they have greater expertise on the subject than do Bill Clinton and Tom Harkin.

It's time to make that call to the WH, folks.

[creeksneakers2]

130. If I know more than Bill Clinton

Then you know more than Obama.

[bamacrat]

133. Obama lacks those two swinging things that makes people act despite pressure not to, what are they

Oh yeah BALLS. He needs to grow a pair and tell the Republicans, I'm fucking this donkey your just holding the head. Ok that may be a bit profane but seriously, why is it the party with all the balls has no ideas or intelligence to responsibly use them. But, the party with all the intelligence and ideas has no balls to enact their ideas. It's just a long stupid downward spiral we will continue on unless some of the smart people stop being pussies and just act. Do something damnit, I understand the pukes control the house, but shit Clinton got a hell of a lot done without a majority in the House and Senate. He had balls though.

We have been living with the consequences of electing people who are all balls and no brains or all brains no balls for the last 10 years (longer than that I know) and look what we have to show for it. Can't we find someone with both? Or is that called a campaigner. Once elected they pick which side they will act out in this play and then fuck it all up.

[Cool Logic]

134. "Or is that called a campaigner."

I believe cult of personality is a more applicable term.

Clinton got a hell of a lot done without a majority in the House and Senate. He had balls though.

What Clinton has is the ability to think, understand, integrate and prove.