Geithner: Fourteenth Amendment Is Not an Option

[Poll_Blind]

Very short article so I'm just providing a link. Also includes video of Geithner's interview: HERE

PB

[trueblue2007]

1. he is a liar

[Poll_Blind]

2. Anything specific to his comments on the 14th Amendment or just in general?

?

PB

[PoliticAverse]

18. See the letter recently send by the Treasury General Counsel...

"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."

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/FACT-CHECK-Treasury-General-Counsel-George-Madison-Responds-to-New-York-Times-Op-Ed-on-14th-Amendment.aspx

[elocs]

3. Unfortunately, in this situation, his opinion counts a little more than yours.

He also has more to say.

[sudopod]

25. It's obvious that there is no magical "real" interpretation of any part of the Constitution.

In practice, the Constitution consists of what the powers that be say it does. The Supreme Court gets the final say, of course, but the other two branches get first whack at deciding what they want it to mean.

At the moment, I'm not a fan.

[MineralMan]

4. Well, that settles it, then.

No need for specifics. We know you're right, automatically. Oh, wait...who are you?

[Dept of Beer]

19. When do you ever cite specifics?

[MineralMan]

20. Whenever they're necessary.

This thread is not about me, in any case.

[sudopod]

26. Good work, citizen!

You show an admirable deference to properly constituted authority. Double rations for you.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fredamae]

5. Then arrest boehner mcconnell & cantor for

putting the entire global economy at risk for political gain.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

6. Even if you think it is not an option....

why would you take it off the table??

[TheKentuckian]

10. My exact thought

Setting limits only invites certain personalities to crossing the line, knowing that the any counter to their behavior is already been discarded.

The ruthless cannot be dealt with like this.

[Poll_Blind]

13. I'm deeply concerned that using the 14th Amendment would represent positioning for...

...an unrestricted all you can eat buffet of credit which the US will tear through at an even greater rate in the future should the 14th Amendment be invoked (in this context) and survive legal challenges. I also don't think it will do much better for our credit than a default would. Being able to come to some sort of legislative agreement shows our creditors we still have some semblance of sanity and self control left.

PB

[customerserviceguy]

23. Well stated

Besides, what if, after the inevitable legal challenges all the way to the SCOTUS, they decide that the 14th doesn't mean "borrow all you can"? At that point, it would be realizing the emperor has no clothes, and worldwide financial markets would crash with a fury that made 1929 look like a blip.

Frankly, I don't think world credit markets would buy the 14th scenario, and would just start an orderly march to the exits, to let the really well-off get to the lifeboats first.

[pa28]

14. That's what I'm wondering.

If Geithner just said they were "exploring the option" it would place some additional pressure and uncertainty on the Republicans. Instead we've taken that particular tool out of our own tool box.

Might be fine if you were opposing reasonable, good faith people but . . .

[Igel]

30. If you think it's unconstitutional, why put it on the table?

To provide a two minute debate in which you start off negotiations by having your position refuted pretty quickly, your understanding of the law and Constitution shown to be essentially nil, and your ability to present things honestly and accurately impugned?

I've always rather thought that starting off by being shown to be insincere, to have demonstrated ill-will and bad faith right off the bat, and rather soundly losing the first fight was a less than winning strategy in what are likely to be long and trying negotiations.

Then again, I'm not a professional negotiator, unlike some here, so what do I know?

[Fool Count]

35. Because leaving it on the table would only make the matters worse.

It would spook investors into believing that it actually might be a possibility,
and both sides are not really trying to agree on debt ceiling increase. Besides,
any debt issued under such a "plan" will have questionable legitimacy and won't
attract too many takers anyhow.

[CleanGreenFuture]

7. "We’ve looked at this very carefully — as had President Clinton

and his lawyers when he was president — and this is not a workable option..."

The why the hell did Clinton say it?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

11. Part of reason may be that Bill ain't the same cat that he was before open heart surgery.

[MineralMan]

21. Probably because Clinton is no longer President.

He can say anything he wants. :shrug:

[Vinca]

8. I'm convinced the GOP is setting another trap for the POTUS.

They'll come up with a ridiculous plan he can't possibly sign and they'll blame him when it all goes over the cliff. He should, at the very least, give the Constitutional option serious thought. It's more than obvious he's tried and tried and tried to reason with the asylum that is the House. Sane people will support him.

[customerserviceguy]

24. He's already proved

that he will sign anything that can get through both houses of Congress. His veto would make him 100% responsible for whatever consequences ensued.

[napi21]

28. If you listened carefully to Geitner's wording, you'd see that invoking the

14th amendment is NOT off the table. He said we are convinced doing that would not ease the paid that a default would cause to the American people. As I understand it (from a professor of law) the President is only able to invoke the 14th amendment when we WRE IN A CRISIS. To me that means we would have to default, see the cricis situation actually occurr, and THEN the President could invoke and pay the bills. I believe that's what Tim meant when he said it would not aleviate the pain caused to the Pamerican people, because the pain would have to have begun before the invocation.

I've heard this from several law professors and it makes sense.

[enlightenment]

9. So what he is actually saying is that it's not a workable

option because it would not address the deficit cutting that everyone seems to think is the only response to this situation.

Geithner is not a Constitutional scholar and he's not saying it isn't possible for the President to use the 14th - just that "it not a workable option to limit the damage to the American people that would come from Congress not acting to avoid a default crisis."

Personally, I prefer to take my Constitutional interpretations from people who are experts in interpreting the Constitution - not economic blowhards who are, in part, responsible for putting us where we are. But that's just me . . .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Somebody should remind Geithner, and his boss, that the veto is an option.

As in, "I will veto any bill that cuts SS and/or Medicare benefits to the present, or future, recipients."

This, "powerless president" schtick is getting old.

[indurancevile]

17. they don't want you to remember that.

[Rageneau]

15. Would Bush's people take ANY weapon off the table?

Geither should realize that this isn't about what's 'legal' anymore. This is about power.

[PoliticAverse]

16. Even if you see the 14th amendment as an option it concerns preexisting debt not new debt...

The prohibition on "questioning the debt" doesn't authorize the creation of new debt.
Thus the 14th might be used to prevent default on currently issued debt but the problem
of issuing new debt to pay for spending would remain.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. actually if the only way to make good on current obligations is to

issue new debt - it does just that and that is exactly the situation we are in, which is why a default would occur on Big Bullshit Day.

It doesn't give the executive any authority to raise money from new t-bills to pay for spending on current programs - for example military equipment and salaries - but current expenses are only half of the non SS/Medicare budget, the other half is debt service.

SS and Medicare are interesting cases - the portion currently being funded out of the trust fund due to the recession would be 'debt obligations' the remainder (FICA revenue) would likely have to go to debt service until congress stopped being insane.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. A congress which passes a budget expending X and revenues of .5X has already authorized debt.

[Igel]

31. In which case there's never a reason for Congress to authorize borrowing.

In the event of war, pass an appropriations bill. In the event of a revenue shortfall, there's already the budget.

One wonders why the constitution committee ever bothered to mention it. But they did, and they thought it important.

Hell, go one step further. Why pass a tax levy? Just pass a budget. The President automatically would have the implied authority necessary to impose tariffs, levy and collect taxes, borrow against the credit of the US.

That's where the reasoning takes you: To absurdity. Why? Because there's nothing restricting the President to *borrowing* except that this is the context for the current debate. We discuss a short-fall because of the debt limit so to avoid default we have to increase the debt limit, meaning he has plenary authority to engage in any debt-raising necessary. But the debt limit's restricting revenues through borrowing is no less a contributing factor than the tax rates' restricting revenues through tax collection and entitlement and military spending. So if the president can unilaterally raise money through borrowing, he could just as well revamp the budget and rewrite the SS and Medicare regs or levy new taxes. I'm sure somebody will say, "They're different," but not be able to point out a cogent and relevant difference. Just saying "that's different" will constitute the full extent of the argument.

[defendandprotect]

27. Geithner is an OPTION ... and we should be overturning this "team" and the

administration that put them all in power --

Thanks, Obama!!

[NuttyFluffers]

32. i don't trust him.

fuck him. he burned his credentials ages ago.

do as the republicans do, do what you want first and let people sort it out after. raise the debt ceiling and ignore the republicans and nay-sayers. what're they gonna do, make you take it back?

[tsuki]

33. Did I vote for President Geithner? I am sure that I didn't. nt

[MadHound]

34. So Timmy, if Clinton's people looked at it, and liked it,

What makes you think that it can't be done? Oh, yeah, it would provoke a Constitutional crisis, and god knows, your crew doesn't like a fight.