Why is the 14th Amendment not an option, and why won't they use it?

[LaydeeBug]

It seems to me that this administration is accomplishing things that only a REPUBLICAN dreams about...a Republican President would NEVER have gotten away with cutting social security, and I think it's a sad day when I pray that our rank and file elected democrats will FIGHT to protect the elderly (because we're all going to be old one day) from this administration.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Obama didn't say he wouldn't - just said he would like to reach agreement

[TheWraith]

22. Not to mention, REALLY bad precedent.

There's a reason we don't allow the President to just summarily declare things unconstitutional.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Because the consensus is the 14th amendment doesn't permit the president to override the debt limit

Timothy Geithner stated he thinks the debt limit is constitutional.
Laurence Tribe, constitutional scholar and Obama's former professor and adviser believes the debt limit is constitutional.

[Jack Sprat]

5. I don't care what Geithner or Tribe said.

You don't ask. You just do it, because you're the president and your job is to protect the credit rating and avoid defaulting on the debt.

If you think that the public is going to turn on the president for doing that, I think you're way wrong.

Let the teabaggin party drag this through the courts. Then, if and when the SCOTUS finally agrees with them, then the default goes squarely on their shoulders where it belongs and you have no republiCons elected for the next generation or longer.

[former9thward]

8. You don't care if the President does something blatantly unconstitutional.

Maybe he should just jail his enemies and be done with it. If the court disagrees with him too bad it will be too late.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Isn't that why Republicans love Lincoln so much ? n/t

[former9thward]

14. Are you suggesting the Civil War was unconstitutional?

[PoliticAverse]

15. I was alluding to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus....

to go along with your "jail his enemies" comment.

[Jack Sprat]

10. fuck no I don't and neither do most people.

If you think that allowing the full faith and credit of the USA to pay its' creditors is unconstitutional, then I'll meet you in court to decide it. And so will most of our citizens. We have to pay our debts and it's incumbent on the president to see that it is done, no matter how many teabaggin congressional members want to see us default.

[former9thward]

12. You don't know what you are talking about.

Given that I would love to meet you in court on this or any other subject. If the debt ceiling is unconstitutional then why aren't tax rates? Borrowing is just one way to get money. You get money by taxing too. Under your tortured logic tax rates would be unconstitutional because they limit income just as the debt limit limits borrowing. Thank god Obama knows more about the constitution than many of the posters on this board.

[Jack Sprat]

17. The 14th amendment also

states that taxation to pay the debts and creditors of the USA in order to meet the obligations of the government shall not be abridged.

[FreakinDJ]

34. 1 BIG Problem - Issuing Treasury Bonds is not Taxation

[Jack Sprat]

11. Another thing for you.

The 14th amendment tells me it is constitutional. You and Geithner and your other buddy will have to prove in court that it's not.

Why is it that you administration staffers find it so convenient to agree with the republiCons non-fucking stop and repititiously to the point of blind insanity?

[former9thward]

13. Won't have to prove it in court because it will never get there.

Sorry to disappoint your dictatorship wanna be efforts.

[Jack Sprat]

16. The only reason it won't get there

is this president is too weak an administrator and leader to actually have the gnads to protect the interests of the elderly, sick, and those most in need. He can sure manage to violate the constitution on torture when it becomes convenient, can't he? Doesn't have much trouble with that.

[Hosnon]

54. It is no where close to "blatantly" unconstitutional.

Blatantly unconstitutional is a 29 year old serving in the Senate.

[Joe the Revelator]

25. Then you are not a reasonable person.

[Jack Sprat]

29. Gee whiz.

But the teapottiers are so reasonable, aren't they?

And Boehner and McConnell? hearts of gold.

[Joe the Revelator]

51. Of course they aren't which is why we have to be for the good of the country

[riderinthestorm]

37. I'm sorry but Obama isn't really dealing with 'reasonable people" right now.

You appear to believe that being polite and reasonable will win the day.

Unfortunately, the opposition is playing to the death. Real death of the US as an international player, to satisfy some bizarre budget notions of ill-informed constituents. Nobody really knows how much power the Tea Party actually has in the hinterlands yet the full faith and credit of our country is being held hostage to some nebulous crazies.

Sane Rethugs are not stepping forward to shepherd the wayward crazies off the stage. Instead they appear to be hardening their positions. Sorry but negotiating with insanity IS insanity.

Obama needs to up the ante and call their bluff.

[FreakinDJ]

6. Doesn't matter what Geithner thinks

and most Constitutional Law Experts (which Geithner is not) at best are split in their consensus.



Come Aug 3 it is Obama's sworn duty to up hold the constitution and the Constitution clearly states the Debts will be honored. The ONLY Constitutional Crisis is the House believing they have the RIGHT to Vote twice on the Public Debt

[originalpckelly]

3. The power to go into debt was given to the Congress in the US Constitution.

In fact, allowing the President to do this, would probably kill off the power of the purse.

If it happens, kiss America good bye even more than if they don't pass a debt ceiling.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Why would allowing the president to do this kill off the power of the purse? nt

[FreakinDJ]

7. RIGHT you are and they already voted once to create the debt

now they want a second vote to see if they will honor it - thats the Unconstitutional part of this equation

[Jack Sprat]

19. They approved all the debt they amassed under Bush

plus all the debts amassed under Pappy and Reagan, but now they have a problem with the constitutionality of paying off those debts. Sounds like typical republiCon dirty-tricks to me.

[badtoworse]

20. That is not what the vote is about

The vote is whether we should be able to borrow more money to pay off existing debt. That is not the only way of servicing existing debt - if it cannot borrow more money, the government will have to severely cut spending and will likely furlough large numbers of government workers.

[FreakinDJ]

28. WRONG - the president does not have the authority to with hold funds

Nixon did that - and Congress acted in 1974 to prevent it from ever happening again.

The President does have sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the 4th Amendments clearly states the US Debt shall be honored.

Right now there is sufficient argument is the Debt Ceiling Law Constitutional.

[Shrek]

18. If the 14th empowers Obama to raise the debt ceiling

. . . then it also empowers him raise revenue in order to service the existing debt.

In that case he could just eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich, right?

[Jack Sprat]

21. I don't know, but I know I would.

Look here, the last president, named Lil Boots, invaded a sovereign nation w/o provocation, approved torture of foreign prisoners, approved wire-tapping and eavesdropping on American citizens, and no telling what else.

Why do we even take these phoney republiCONS seriously in these budget matters? The 14th amendment provides enough ambiguity to easily fascilitate raising the debt ceiling in the near term and let the courts decide the issue once and for all. The constitution doesn't mention a debt ceiling, but it does direct us to raise taxes sufficient for paying our debts, pensions, and obligations. That it does do.

[badtoworse]

23. The constitution also says that tax legislation has to originate in the House - nt

The Executive branch does not have the power to impose taxes

[Jack Sprat]

26. So it originated in the House, didn't it?

It originated there but as Aug 2nd approaches, there is no agreement. No president worth his salt is going to allow this country to default on its' obligations in time of financial crisis. So you do what has to be done and you let them take you all the way to the highest court in the land,.....and you even let them bring impeachment charges against you........and guess what? The public knows you, as president, acted to avert a financial meltdown and catastrophe and your enemies will lose everything they've got politically.

[FreakinDJ]

30. Correct - but we are not talking about additional Taxes

we are talking about issuing additional Treasury Bonds to finance the Deficit and avoid defaulting on our debts

[totodeinhere]

27. And what if a judge issues an injunction blocking Obama's use of the 14th Amendment pending a court

review that could take months or even years? You better believe that if Obama tried it the GOP would be in court trying to block it in a heartbeat. Then where would we be? For one thing we would have a constitutional crisis that we don't need right now.

[FreakinDJ]

31. It would go to SCOTUS

and all the Law Experts are split as to the outcome

But No - it is Not Illegal for Obama to uphold his sworn duty

[Jack Sprat]

32. Let them block it. Let them take it to court.

Who is trying to meet the obligations of the United States government? Who is representing the country nobly to defend the full faith and credit of the United States of America?

ARE YOU LAME??? The president becomes the savior, the hero in the eyes of the nation and the world.

Please, try to have some vision of how this plays out.

The public isn't as confused as you are. The Repubics are already down to 20% favorable on this very debate.

[totodeinhere]

38. I am not confused and I don't appreciate your calling me lame.

But I will set aside your insults. Are you so sure that the conservatives on the Supreme Court will accept your analysis? It doesn't matter what the favorably rating of the Republicans is. What matters is what the courts would rule and the answer to that is far from certain.

And remember that President Obama himself said that he would prefer to let the courts sort this out. Plus the Republicans have already threatened to take Obama to court if he tries to invoke the 14th Amendment.

[Jack Sprat]

42. I'm through with this. You made your points

and I made mine. We disagree completely.

But I'm going to bed now. \\Fuck republiCONS and the horse that drugged them with oxycontin.

[totodeinhere]

24. The courts have not ruled on whether or not the 14th Amendment can be applied in this case.

Some observers like you believe that it can, but others are not so sure. A nightmare scenario would be that we come up against the August 2 deadline and Obama invokes the 14th Amendment only to have his actions blocked by an injunction pending a court review. Then there might not be time to do anyrhing else and we default.

[FreakinDJ]

33. I beleive you have the question backwards

Does Congress have the Right to force the US to Default on the Debt

You also need to define Debt as well. These are moneys allocated through properly enacted legislation and signed into law by the House Senate and Executive branch. The Constitutional Crisis only occurs when the Debt Ceiling restricts the Treasury from financing the payments as directed by the legislation

The Default would be adherence of the Debt Ceiling Law, ei: the Debt Ceiling law is unconstitutional not the President's actions upholding the constitution of the United States

[totodeinhere]

35. Are you absolutely sure that that the courts would accept your interpretation?

What would Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito say about that? I'm not so sure. Do you want to take that chance?

[FreakinDJ]

36. If Aug 2 comes and goes without a solution

I don't see where Obama has a choice but to Defend the Constitution, issue the Treasury Bonds and have the US Attorney argue against the Debt Ceiling Law

[totodeinhere]

39. We are going around in circles here. What happens if the GOP gets a court injunction blocking

Obama from doing that?

[FreakinDJ]

44. I'm not going in circles - you might be - but I'm not

Only the President is mandated by the Constitution and Sworn to Uphold the Constitution in the Oath of offic

If and When the Constitutional Crisis occurs President Obama would be obligated by that oath of office to order the Treasury by Executive Oder to Issue the Treasury Bonds necessary to divert the Constitutional Crisis - some thing he would be held in contempt if he did not do.

Sure Legislators and Senators have "To Uphold the Constitution of the United States" included in their oath, but it is not outlined as such in the Constitution.

A Federal Circuit Judge can not issue an injunction against an Executive Order. He can issue an injunction against Law but only SCOTUS can argue an Executive order.

OK fine - would the Corp stacked court rule in favor of crashing the US Economy and their Corp masters on Wall St. Good question - but why would they be arguing the Executive Order that prevented a Constitutional Crisis and Not the law that caused the Constitutional Crisis

I can explain it again in really BIG BOLD print if you still having trouble absorbing the material

[totodeinhere]

46. Legal scholars are discrediting the idea that the president has the power to circumvent the debt

ceiling set by Congress in order to avoid a government default.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/170555-legality-of-14th-amendment-solution-under-fire

Are you a legal scholar?

[FreakinDJ]

47. 50/50

I can post an equal number of links where Constitutional Law Professors are arguing the Debt Ceiling Law is Unconstitutional

Come Aug 3 - it is the Debt Ceiling Law that has provided the Constitutional Crisis and not the President's actions

This requirement is absolute. It is contained in Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which directs, in no uncertain terms, that "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."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/06/29/why-the-constitutional-option-on-the-debt-limit-makes-even-more-sense-today/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/06/29/is_the_debt_ceiling_constitutional_.html

First, it does not simply say that the national debt must be paid; it says that its "validity ... shall not be questioned." Only one other section of the Constitution--the Thirteenth Amendment's proclamation that "either slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"--is as unqualified and sweeping.

Second, it suggests a broad definition of the national debt: "...including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion."

From this language, it's not hard to argue that the Constitution places both payments on the debt and payments owed to groups like Social Security recipients--pensioners, that is--above the vagaries of Congressional politics. ... If Congress won't pay them, then the executive must.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/39408/

[totodeinhere]

52. You just made my point. Legal scholars are divided over this. So should we take

a chance that our favored legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment will prevail? Or should we trust the amateur lawyers at DU who seem to be so sure about this? The stakes are too high to take that chance IMO.

[riderinthestorm]

41. Are you absolutely sure that SCOTUS' supreme masters, corporate America will allow them to issue an

injunction pending review?

It's a gamble. No doubt. But do you see a different alternative? Eviscerate social programs and actually lower tax rates on the rich, or try the 14th Amendment?

Honestly, I believe SCOTUS' real masters (and Obama's and most Rethugs) would never allow an injunction. They'd actually be relieved Obama took the necessary steps to preserve their wealth.

[Jack Sprat]

43. Absolutely. Besides that, if the repukes

file and injunction and the country is forced into default as a result, they will never survive it. The president fought to preserve the financial obligations of the country and the repukes sent it into default?....They would not survive. The whole ball of wax would belong to them.

[FreakinDJ]

45. Especially after the Side Show this week passing CCB

which everyone realizes is DOA

[Jack Sprat]

40. So the courts are going to rule on something

that hasn't even been done yet and wouldn't be done until the 11th hour?

And then......the president has done what he HAD to do to preserve the credit worthiness of our entire American debt....has acted to avert a financial catastrophe.......has acted in the interest of the United States economy and avoided a default.

Then, you foresee the repuke teapartiers pursuing this through the courts to force a default? I'd love to see that. Hey! I'd love to see them try. Let them bring impeachment charges against the one man who stood in the way of a national default of the credit worthiness of America.

You wouldn't even hear about the Republican Party anymore. or the Teaparty. They'd have to leave the country and take their conservative SCOTUS with them on the same flight out.

I'm tired of this conversation now. I made my points. You all made yours. We disagree. I rest my case and I'm going to bed.

[AtomicKitten]

48. Oh, it's an option. A last ditch option. The best option. nt

[U4ikLefty]

49. Same reason the 60-vote filibuster wasn't changed by the Dems.

They don't want to upset their (financial) base by rocking the boat. That could upset their "careers" as future lobbyist.

It's the political version of "silver or lead".

[scheming daemons]

50. Who says he won't use it? If he was to use it, he wouldn't until August 2nd... not July 21st.

[librechik]

53. they're afraid--it could be fluffed up into an Impeach Obama situation

because he "violated the constitution"--I don't believ he would be, and I believe he has the right to raise the ceiling on his own, but many RWers will argue and that could be the result. They'd do it even if they didn't have a prayer of winning, just to harass Obama.