Re: USSC and the 14th Ammendment

[JPK]

Do you think the USSC is looking forward to having to make a decision regarding the 14th Am if it comes down to that or do you think they want to stay as far away from it as possible?

[AndyTiedye]

1. I Think the Decision Has Already Been Written and is in Scalia's Back Pocket

Couriers are on standby to deliver the ruling instantly the moment that Obama utters the word "Fourteenth".

It might take as long as half an hour, if the traffic is particularly heavy.

[hvn_nbr_2]

2. I'm not so sure the Supremes would rule the way you think.

They, especially Roberts, are from the plutocracy side of Pukeistan. For most things they agree with the teabaggers, but when it comes to money, they're on Wall Street's side, and Wall Street thinks the baggers are lunatics on this issue.

[Igel]

3. They'd want to stay away from it.

But in so brazen a confrontation I think they'd feel constrained to say something.

There's no authority in the Constitution for Obama to usurp Congress' authority in this matter. It is, or was given a few moment's reasoning, possible for him to pay the interest bills and have money to allow the purchase and roll over of debt. I think Obama doesn't think he'll need it, so he's not keeping it on hand. That may be what triggers a (brief) default. Having the president's action provide the basis in argument for the president to usurp a power of Congress is a bit much.

In other words, there's a good argument that Obama took steps that led to Obama's needing to step into Congress' domain. The justices frown very greatly upon stepping on each other's toes--just a bit more than they frown upon getting involved in this kind of mess. Even when Jefferson (the Congressman from LA, not the president from VA) was justly suspected of having committed illegal acts and of having papers that probably couldn't be argued were covered by Congressional immunity, the courts worked out a torturous process to uphold the confidentiality of his papers. And SCOTUS shot that down. The Constitution meant even papers that might hold evidence of wrongdoing, if in a Congressman's office, were confidential and the Executive branch was specifically barred from searching them.

Otherwise, there's rather vague language granting Obama some authority, but the actions he'd have to take would be denied him by very clear language. Clear language tends to trump ambiguous language.

Arguments from necessity tend not to hold water. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but it is not by itself grounds for blatantly shredding the Constitution.

[riderinthestorm]

6. This court loves a unitary executive. They've been clear on upholding that privilege.

Plus, they are clearly in the pocket of some big money interests who will be exerting pressure on SCOTUS members to keep the financial waters from getting any more turbulence.

Who has standing to bring the case? That's even more fundamental.

[woolldog]

4. Has the constitutionality of the debt ceiling itself

ever been challenged?

[Tx4obama]

5. No one would have 'legal standing' to take it to the SCOTUS.

So, it ain't gonna happen.

[msanthrope]

7. Any member of Congress has legal standing to file in SCOTUS, per Dennis Kucinich

See, Kucinich v. Obama....

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Libya_Complaint_Master.pdf

Skip to paragraphs 164 and after. According to the bi-partisan plaintiffs, they have the authority to challenge the President.

[Tx4obama]

8. Your link pertains to 'standing' only in that particular brief....

which has different circumstances than if a president were to invoke the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
It is much more complicated than that. It would take more than just one member of Congress (see: excerpt below)


Here's an excerpt regarding 'standing' written by a constitutional lawyer related the issue that was originally being discussed.

SNIP

As a practical matter, I suspect no one has legal standing to challenge an executive decision to borrow in excess of the ceiling. Standing to sue entails a showing of imminent, concrete and particularized injury to the plaintiff — distinct from injury to the broader public. Perhaps Congress as a whole could claim such injury, but that would require a joint resolution, which would never pass the Democratic-controlled Senate. Moreover, even if someone had standing, the Supreme Court would likely treat the debt ceiling dispute as non-justiciable — that is, as a political question lacking legal criteria by which a court can resolve the impasse.

SNIP

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13297

[msanthrope]

9. I think your source simply hasn't read the filing in question. Levy of the Cato Institute?

The guy who practically wrote McConnell v. FEC? Okay.

Look, the entire point of DK's standing argument is that he and Repukes do have the right to challenge an Article I violation in court, in defiance of Campbell v. Clinton and common sense. And he might. I generally take Jonathan Turley's filings seriously.

[Tx4obama]

10. The circumstances in that brief are DIFFERENT ...

You have to show 'standing' in each case. Each case is different and unique.

You are trying to say that the argument for standing in that brief which has several different issues in it, which would not be issues in the a case regarding a president invoking the 14th amendment related to 'paying bills', is the same and it is NOT.

Now, when Turley writes a brief pertaining to the 14th amendment being invoked by a president using 'emergency powers' - I will gladly read it. But as for now, there isn't one.

[msanthrope]

11. Do you get that the 14th is incidental, and that you are missing the point of 'injury?'

The Congresspersons who filed the Libya lawsuit allege an Article 1 violation. How? By violation of the War Powers Act.

The bagger Congresspeople who will file will allege an Article I violation. How? By the President's invocation of the 14th Amendment.

The common theme? Violation of the separation of powers of one branch by the other, and the basis on which one believes they have judicial standing. Ihe 'injury' is to the power of Congress, codified in Article 1.

It's the same injury, that your source claims you need. Same nexus.

Personally, I think Campbell v. Clinton is pretty clear, but my point is that DK is a useless tool.

[Tx4obama]

12. And has SCOTUS agreed to hear the suit?

If they haven't, my guess is that the SCOTUS will eventually reject it due to the plaintiffs not having standing.

Let me know how it comes out :)


Edited to fix typos.

[msanthrope]

13. Oh, it's still dicking around the District Court. I expect it will fail on the

standing issue, as it should. It will be interesting to see if Kook appeals.

If there is an eventual lawsuit against the President for using the 14th, I want to see how much of a cut and paste job they do on Turley's standing argument.

[Tx4obama]

14. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

But Lawrence O'donnell was probably correct when he said that he think Congress will pass a one page debt ceiling bill at the last minute. At least that is what I hope happens and then the issue will be moot until 2013 :)

[msanthrope]

15. They will blink. nt