Can Scalia kill the 14th amendement remedy for defualt?

[DonCoquixote]

I have wondered why O does not use the 14th to hold the GOP in check, then I realized that OUR SC is to the right of Hitler. Can Scalia actually kill the 14th amendment remedy?

[Tx4obama]

1. Someone would have to have 'legal standing' in order to bring it to the SOTUS

Here's a good article to read about the 14th amendment and 'standing': http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13297

[libmom74]

2. The CATO institute? Seriously?

[Tx4obama]

3. The article originally was posted on The Daily Caller.

Just read it. There's some good info in there regarding 'standing'.

[Enthusiast]

5. I refuse to read anything from the Cato Institute.

Sorry, I prefer my propaganda to be left wing.

[3waygeek]

4. And who decides who has standing?

That's right, Scalia & his buddies. They've shown in the past that they're more than willing to disregard precedent to get the results their corporate overlords desire.

[rucky]

6. It would be challenged in SCOTUS

It could be killed through some BS interpretation.

Politically, it could backfire & paint Obama as autocratic, too.

It's not an ace in the hole, or a sure thing by any means.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. not that this court ever let precedence stand in the way of ruling in its masters' interest, but:

there's this, which considers the constitution's vesting of power of purse to congress vs. the 14th amendment's apparent granting of power to the president of repaying said debt incurred by congress>>>>

In Perry v. the United States, one of the Gold Standard cases decided in 1935, the Court declared that:

''The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the Government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations. ”

The majority went on to consider, and reject, a narrow reading of the Constitution that would have confined the reach of the 14th Amendment to Civil War-era debt. We can perceive no reason, they said “for not considering the expression ‘the validity of the public debt’ as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

............

......Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly vests the power to “borrow Money on the credit of the United States” in the legislative branch, casting doubt on the president’s ability to issue debt in the absence of congressional authorization.

On the other hand, the power to borrow money entails the obligation to repay it, and it is up to Congress to meet that obligation—a legal obligation reinforced by the 14th Amendment. While the amendment’s language is rooted in the specific circumstances of the Civil War, the Supreme Court has been inclined to read it more broadly.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0707_debt_ceiling_galston.aspx

I changed the order of material linked to more closely my own train of thought

and, AFA as 'standing', doesn't Obama have the right to invoke emergency powers, or something along those lines, bypassing the SCOTUS. the standing would involve someone attempting to injunct Obama, and forestalling the 14th's invocation

would they be insane enough to overturn it? do they even have the power to review such an order?

they can't undo presidential signing orders, can they?

[Cool Logic]

8. "the power to borrow money entails the obligation to repay it"

The 14th requires that the interest on the bonds as well as the bonds that come due, to be serviced. However, it does not authorize additional borrowing, which is what raising the debt ceiling entails.

At present, there is ample $$$ being collected by the treasury to service the bonds without raising the debt.

[MadHound]

9. Considering that for this, as other, Courts, corporate good is paramount,

I imagine that Scalia and the rest would support the 14th amendment solution unanimously.

[Creideiki]

10. He's one of the 5 Kings

However, I don't think he would. He's corporatist through and through and the corporations want their interest rates low.