White House Rules Out Constitutional Option On Debt Ceiling: Rep

[Jakes Progress]

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

It's so macho to go into a fight with one arm tied behind your back.

[whosinpower]

1. aka - don't worry my bestest GOP friends

I have your back.....not Pelosi, or the dems, or anyone who voted for me.....will you vote for me puleeze?

[napi21]

2. I don't know who wrote that article for HP, but they're wrong!

Yes, I did check the link and there's no author shown.

I listened to the President's response to the question about using the Constitution to go around Congress and just increase the debt without them, and he DIDN'T RULE IT OUT! If my memory is correct, he said "I don't think we need to go to the constitution for this. The Cogress has a job to do and they shoud do it!" That, IMO, doesn't rule anything out. All it does is put it on a back burner with his preference being for Congress to do it job.

[Jakes Progress]

4. I guess Geitner could be lying.

Or maybe the Times reporter is lying. But the article quoted Geitner who should know what the president is planning regarding the budget. You think?

[napi21]

8. OR...Geitner & the President don't want the Pubs to even THINK

he might use the ammendment as a soution. If he agreed that he would do that, the Pubs would have absolutely NO reason to make any decision.

[Jakes Progress]

12. Ahhhhh. Nine dimensional chess.

The republicans don't want to deal. I think they want the date to pass. Sure most will blame the republicans, but the mouth-breathers that make up their constituency will blame the president.

Our government is not working.

[flamingdem]

31. I agree. They must say they will not use it right now, but who knows

default cannot happen. Obama will lose if so because the economy will fully crash

[Tx4obama]

38. Geitner was not 'quoted' in the article. And a source was not named. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

57. a source wasn't named...

during the whole Nixon/Deep Throat thing either.

[KittyWampus]

54. There is serious misinformation floating around this subject.

Especially who said what.
\

It is worth noting, though, that the revelation may have come from a Republican source at the White House meeting, rather than from Geithner or the White House.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Not the 1st Hit Piece from HP as of late

[Jakes Progress]

11. Did you read the story?

Hit piece?

[FreakinDJ]

13. Yes I did read it

that the revelation may have come from a Republican source at the White House meeting, rather than from Geithner or the White House.

Like I said ...

[Jakes Progress]

16. LIke I said,

The story is just the story. So the "revelation may have come from a Republican" is also just speculation.

The point of the OP is for discussion. It's not a tit-for-tat. The idea is to discuss the possibility.

So how would you react if the president did decide not to use the 14th as suggested in the story? Do you think he should?

[FreakinDJ]

19. I think he is Constitutionally bound to use the 14th Amendment option

is what I am seeing from reading it

But walking into the negotiations waving that Big Stick would result in the RATpubliCONs locking their heels refusing to negotiate and pointing fingers.

[Jakes Progress]

22. Could work the other way too.

If they know he has the big stick, they might be more inclined to get what they could.

I really think many of the republicans want to bust the deal and then try, as some threatened, to impeach Obama for using the 14th. It would go over well with their stupid voters, but the republican leadership knows that it would be a pr fiasco for the party as a whole. But the idiot tp republicans don't care about their party. Chest thumping and name calling gets them contributions and votes from their zombie districts. So I sort of think its a toss up as to whether the deal will go through. Republicans have the most to lose so we don't need to be giving them the farm. Anything the WH gives away will be stuff the WH doesn't care about. We will see what the WH doesn't care about when the deal comes down. Obama doesn't really have to give away anything in this. If he gives it away, its because he thinks it ought to be given away.

[FreakinDJ]

24. I beleive the Social Security and Medicaid measures

are a back door approach that strengthen the programs and generate revenue.

Raising the Cap generates a surplus immediately. Eliminating certain provisions of Bush's Part D programs reduce cost immediately.

Social Security and Medicaid programs are very popular amongst the RATpubliCON voters as well. So it would surprise me if either party could extract any political gains from cuts. However Obama needed to raise the anty to $4 Trillion to take a lead in the negotiations

[Jakes Progress]

35. We were talking negotiations.

Giving up your aces before the hand is dealt is the problem. You may be willing or anxious to alter SS and Medicare, but the goal is to wrest revenue from the republicans. Give up your bargaining chips before you set down and you just give away your bargaining chips and get nothing. That is the consistent pattern with this administration.

[Yupster]

45. Could someone explain to me

What is the 14th Amendment Option?

The 14th Amendment means he must pay our debts.

No one is saying it gives him a right to borrow without congressional approval are they? That would violate Article I of the Constitution clearly stated.

So if he must pay our debts there will be no default. If he gets no debt increase he will have to massively cut all other money the government spends by about 50 %.

I don't get what great leverage he's supposed to get out of this other than he'd be the one who would decide which 50 % of spending could still go on.

I'd say on the whole Republicans would be happy to cut spending 50 % and they'd even let Obama pick which 50 % to keep.

[xocet]

33. Author:The Huffington Post, Sam Stein, First Posted: 7/7/11 11:31 PM ET Updated: 7/8/11 01:53 PM ET

It is right below the photograph.

[tularetom]

3. I guess it's OK if they opt not to use the 14th Amendment option

but what would they hope to gain by telegraphing it beforehand?

Sometimes I just scratch my head.

[Jakes Progress]

17. I know the feeling.

Been scratching a lot lately.

[Tx4obama]

6. Another UN-sourced article. LOL :) n/t

[Tx4obama]

7. The title of the OP is misleading. It is NOT 'rep' as in 'representative, it is 'rep' as in 'report'

And the 'report' is UN-sourced.

[Jakes Progress]

10. Why would you think it meant representative.

Straight cut from the story headline. Got cut by word limit.

The only source I saw was the Times.

So how would you react if the president did decide not to use the 14th as suggested in the story? Do you think he should?

[Hippo_Tron]

14. I think the President should walk out of the negotiations and just declare that he's using the 14th

Most likely Boehner will be left begging the President for some sort of compromise that will be pretty favorable to the White House. But there's also the risk that Boehner is crazy enough to stick his ground in which case you have a serious problem.

Here's the bottom line. The White House believes they can win re-election under the status quo. That means they're not going to do anything drastic like very seriously float the 14th as a solution to this problem.

[beyurslf]

9. The WH needs to tell every person in COngress if they vote against the debt limit, then not one

single dollar from the federal government will come into their district until the limit is passed. NOT ONE DOLLAR!

[Llewlladdwr]

34. How exactly would the Executive branch accomplish this?

Congress (the Legislative branch) makes the budget, not the President.

[beyurslf]

44. The Secretary of the Treasury spends the money. And he chooses what bills to pay and when.

When a household can no longer pay all of the bills, the person in charge of the money decides which bills get paid and which ones get put to the side. Sec Geitner is in charge of those bills for the country. He should choose not to pay the bills in those districts.

[woolldog]

15. Why would you rule anything out

and decrease your negotiating leverage?

[Jakes Progress]

18. Maybe not so good at negotiating?

[Yupster]

46. True

at least make your opponents waste time and money researching the possibility.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. There is only one obvious conclusion.

The administration and republicans are working to give one another political cover for implementing the goals they share; reducing the safety net and keeping the economy safe for wall street.

Shoulda seen it coming: "I'm pleased to announce the grand compromise that saves the US from debt default! We've decided to selectively default on social security recipients by raising SS taxes and cutting benefits! This has the benefit of setting up the conditions where wall street hedge fund managers will never have to repay the loans extended to the US government by US workers. It's a win-win scenario! Cuts in the safety net and profits for Wall Street! Yay! See? We can have it all! It shows how political adversaries can come together and work to find compromise."

[frazzled]

21. Read Laurence Tribe's explanation of the 14th Amendment route ...

in today's NYT. Since Tribe is considered one of the leading liberal scholars of constitutional law, I think it's worth taking his arguments seriously. Must be read in full, but here's the pith:

The Supreme Court has addressed the public debt clause only once, in 1935, in the case of Perry v. United States. The court observed only that the clause confirmed the “fundamental principle” that Congress may not “alter or destroy” debts already incurred.

Some have argued that this principle prohibits any government action that “jeopardizes” the validity of the public debt. By increasing the risk of default, they contend, any debt ceiling automatically violates the public debt clause.

This argument goes too far. It would mean that any budget deficit, tax cut or spending increase could be attacked on constitutional grounds, because each of those actions slightly increases the probability of default. Moreover, the argument is self-defeating. If it were correct, the absence of a debt ceiling could likewise be attacked as unconstitutional — after all, the greater the nation’s debt, the greater the difficulty of repaying it, and the higher the probability of default.

Other proponents of a constitutional deus ex machina have offered a more modest interpretation of the public debt clause, under which only actual default (as opposed to any action that merely increases the risk of default) is impermissible. This interpretation makes more sense. But advocates of the constitutional solution err in their next step: arguing that, because default would be unconstitutional, President Obama may violate the statutory debt ceiling to prevent it.

The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution. Moreover, it is well established that the president’s power drops to what Justice Robert H. Jackson called its “lowest ebb” when exercised against the express will of Congress.

Worse, the argument that the president may do whatever is necessary to avoid default has no logical stopping point. In theory, Congress could pay debts not only by borrowing more money, but also by exercising its powers to impose taxes, to coin money or to sell federal property. If the president could usurp the congressional power to borrow, what would stop him from taking over all these other powers, as well?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=1&hp

[Jakes Progress]

23. That's an opinion.

But remember this is the professor that admitted plagerism and who called Sotomayor a bully and not smart. Of course, he was flacking (sucking up) for his boss then.

And although Wikipedia calls him a big old liberal, his cases before the SC and district courts don't show solid credentials there.

That said, his is the view that is being used to thwart using the 14th. It is not the only view out there.

[frazzled]

25. Well, it certainly isn't Treasury's opinion

Tribe did get one thing wrong: Geithner didn't mean what everyone thought he meant.

Treasury's General Counsel George Madison submitted to the New York Times today the following letter to the editor:
July 8, 2011

The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Contrary to Professor Laurence Tribe's assertion (Op-Ed, July 8), Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit. As Professor Tribe notes, the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress, not the President.

The Secretary has cited the 14th Amendment's command that "he validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned" in support of his strong conviction that Congress has an obligation to ensure we are able to honor the obligations of the United States. Like every previous Secretary of the Treasury who has confronted the question, Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress.

Sincerely,

George W. Madison
General Counsel

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/07/treasury_no_to_14th_amendment_route.php#more?ref=fpblg

[frazzled]

29. And it's Nancy Pelosi's opinion as well: 14th Amend. a "no go"

It's not appropriate says she, and it ain't going to happen. Not in the president's purview.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-on-obama-ignoring-the-debt-limit-aint-gonna-happen.php?ref=fpb

[krawhitham]

30. YEP, because Obama is not going to take the hit on the 14th Amend option, Geithner is

[frazzled]

32. No, because it is not constitutionally sound

Congress is going to have to pay the country's bills, and everybody of any sanity agrees with that. I suppose you want to force a Constitutional crisis: now THAT would certainly help people a lot.

[Jakes Progress]

36. Still an opinion, dude.

Why would the president decide to yield to a narrow view interpretation when it comes to providing for poor and sick but decide to run on the wild side when it comes to the War Powers act? I think it shows us what he believes and who he is.

[Hawkowl]

27. Like the War Powers Act?

So Obama only uses his super executive powers for death and destruction?

[Jakes Progress]

37. Read another interpretation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=2&hp

[frazzled]

41. Um, that's exactly the opinion (Tribe's) I posted

Guess this thread has gotten too confusing. But my original purpose was to post Tribe's argument, which is pretty damned compelling, and seems to conform to what the Treasury Department, the House Minority Leader, and the WH are all saying as well.

[Yupster]

47. The Times is right

Invoking the 14th Amendment would not give Obama the right to waive the debt limit.

Just because we have to pay our bills does not mean we have to borrow more.

We could spend less.

Lots less. Obama could cut the government by 50 % and presto we'd have no reason to raise the debt limit.

So if Obama invoked the 14th Amendment, Republicans would shrug and say, good cut the government in half.

If Obama borrowed without congressional approval he'd be in direct violation of Article I of the Constitution and impeachment poroceedings would start very quickly.

[polichick]

26. Of course he does - why risk anything himself when he can look like the great peacemaker...

...in the room the throw Democrats under the bus - again?

[Fearless]

28. Of course... because he's already decided to cut SS.

[Tx4obama]

39. There is absolutely NO proof of that. Stop making stuff up. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

40. No proof or past experience that he won't. Stop chasing bubbles. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

42. Try as you might, Pres. Obama is by no means DINO DLC Bill Clinton, who engaged in MediScare.

Proof: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2011/5/26/10323/2396

[Fearless]

43. How do you know?

[ClarkUSA]

50. The facts bear me out, that's why. Bullshit speculation doesn't count.

[Jakes Progress]

48. Hope as you might, Pres. Obama is a DLC/ThirdWay Protegee.

But you keep on hopin' and dreamin' and postin' and hopin' and dreamin' and postin'.

Too young for that song, huh?

[ClarkUSA]

51. Prove it. Demonizing DLC rhetoric is as empty as Clintonian ethics.

[Jakes Progress]

52. Chirping "Prove It" is just silly. The president proves it every day.

I understand rooting for the home team. I taught, so I am familiar with the be-true-to-your-school mentality that causes perfectly ordinary people to become fanatical about their favorite brand of soda, or pasta place, or football team, or rock star candidate. But sooner or later, you gotta grow up and see reality. Or you'll be one of those pathetic hangers on who stand around at the home games of their old high school trying to get a whiff of the glory of their past.

I campaigned for him too. I donated. I volunteered. I sat in dozens of living rooms telling people why they should vote for Obama. Now many of the things I told people while I sat on their couches are turning out to be lies. I had to grow up. You will to.

[ClarkUSA]

55. In other words, you got nuthin'.

Gotcha.

:rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

58. There are no other words. Your guy is third way. Proves it every day.

You are probably the only person on DU that doesn't know that Obama is a third way protegee. Actually, I bet you know it. You have trumpeted third way policies whenever Obama has implemented them. Why you would want to demean Obama's models - the Clintons - is beyond me. He walks like a Clinton, talks like a Clinton, hires all their old employees, slavishly follows the words of the Clinton advisors. You can't possible be unaware of this. But still you want to play the game. Why don't you just embrace the politics of your hero? To praise Obama and damn Clinton is just foolish and shows what is a monumental lack of knowledge about politics and government. But then, those aren't your interests are they? Fandom is a nice hobby. But you need to stop pretending to be political.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

49. Does not want to upset his 'friends on the other side of the asile'

Meanwhile, their plans to ruin him and his legacy march forward unabated....

[kiranon]

53. Which means Republicans are free to use 14th Amendment as a club

any time they want to argue that Democrats could have avoided the whole debt ceiling problem by invoking the 14th Amendment but didn't because Democrats do not believe in the Constitution. President should keep this option "on the table".

[Arkana]

56. Yeah, this was a mistake.

You always keep the nuclear option in reserve. This was a tactical error by the White House.

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. How about because it would set a precedent for a Pres. Bachmann?

Is that really what you want? A Democrat won't always be in the WH. If the president considers circumventing Congress on a budget matter, every Republican who follows will do the exact same thing, and I assure you that you'll be back here whining that the spineless Democratss did nothing to stop Pres. BachRomneyPalin.

Besides, a move like that would definitely go to the courts, and as usual, there would likely be a 5-4 split in the Republicans favor. And when the president loses at USSC level, you'll be decrying him for not "fighting" harder, cuz he didn't want a victory anyway, cuz he's a DINO or some other nonsense.
:eyes: