3 ways Obama could bypass Congress (sorry if repost) Jack Balkin

[yodermon]

This is dated yesterday. Good analysis IMHO.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

We are having a debt-ceiling crisis because Congress has given the president contradictory commands; it has ordered the president to spend money, and it has forbidden him to borrow enough money to obey its orders.
...
Ironically, there's no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.
...
If the president reasonably believes that the public debt will be put in question for either reason, Section 4 comes into play once again. His predicament is caused by the combination of statutes that authorize and limit what he can do: He must pay appropriated monies, but he may not print new currency and he may not float new debt. If this combination of contradictory commands would cause him to violate Section 4, then he has a constitutional duty to treat at least one of the laws as unconstitutional as applied to the current circumstances.
...

Here the president would argue that existing appropriations plus the debt ceiling create an unconstitutional combination of commands. Therefore he chooses to obey the appropriations bill -- which was passed later in time anyway -- and ignores the debt ceiling. He orders the secretary of the Treasury to issue new debt sufficient to pay the government's bills as they come due.

The big test would be whether the markets treat these new bonds just like older bonds. If they do, or if they demand only a slightly higher interest rate, the president will have avoided economic Armageddon and saved the country's economy -- and the world's. The president and Congress can then move on to the real issue: fighting about future appropriations and revenues.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. First, he has to want to

[leveymg]

3. What he wants is a "crisis" to force Congress to cut the social safety net.

We shouldn't give in to that sort of strong arm tactic.

The Federal Reserve (QE2) will bailout the banks again (and indirectly the public), while the Treasury reprograms funds for foreign bond holders. Tuesday is not a deadline. There will be no defaults.

No to the Raw Deal.

[chill_wind]

2. Good informative post. And here's what he's writing today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x617120

[yodermon]

4. I'm wondering: If there is a constitutional contradiction at work,

could the President to straight to the Courts to adjudicate the conflict?
Or could he "sue" Congress for not doing their Constitutional duties?

[chill_wind]

5. All way over my head, but if I follow what J Balkin is arguing

about "political question" doctrine (in your link), that just sounds unlikely, under this same argument regarding Congress's lack of standing. But I don't pretend to know.

The final possibility is that members of Congress will sue the president for ignoring the debt ceiling. Under existing Supreme Court precedents, groups of individual congressmen would not probably have standing to sue. It is possible that a contrived suit could be created by bond holders, but courts will probably see through it. Moreover, even if the bond holders have standing, the courts will likely treat the constitutional issues as nonjusticiable under the "political question" doctrine, as they do in the case of war powers.


"Political question doctrine" and "justiciability"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question

[chill_wind]

6. kicking

[riderinthestorm]

8. I'll kick too. K and R. nt

[Honeycombe8]

7. If Obama bypasses Congress, it'll be viewed as a dictatorial action.

Something a dictator would do. Wouldn't Dems have viewed it that way, if Bush had done that?

Not saying he shouldn't do that. Just noting how it would be viewed.

[chill_wind]

9. The RW teabag crazies will try to seize weapons no matter

what choice he makes. They are trying to create all the onus on him for acting-or not acting.
If there were a major meltdown, they would be just as happy to use his inaction. I think most of the American public would be saner.