Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th

[DainBramaged]

Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th, Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th, Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th,Invoke the 14th!!!!!

[Warpy]

1. He will probably have no choice at this point

The Republicans have now split into open warfare between the extremists and the teabagger crazy people. The more moderate Democrats can't get their plan passed against a Republican majority and the Republicans have split into two hostile groups and can't put forth a plan from either that will pass. Eventually a coalition between the merely extremist GOP and the mushy middle Democrats will form, but that might not happen before the default date.

We're living in interesting times.

[October]

2. Or maybe he should invoke the 14th... /nt

[rhett o rick]

6. I heard that some where before. Hmmm. Oh well. Carry on. nm

[October]

16. Forgot to add my and smiley! /nt

[alfredo]

3. Then dare the Reps to impeach him.

[alfredo]

4. Oops! new touchpad, old fingers.

[Llewlladdwr]

5. How exactly would the President do this?

Could you please provide a link to the appropriate text of the 14th Amendment that authorizes the Executive to raise revenues or borrow against the full faith and credit of the United States? Thanks.

[yodermon]

9. An Executive order commanding the u.s. treasury secretary to issue debt instruments

better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, dontcha think.

There's also the coin seigniorage possibility, which simply follows procedures from existing statues, namely

(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

U.S Code TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 5112 > (k)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00005112----000-.html

[Shrek]

12. And who, exactly, do you think will purchase these debt instruments?

And at what cost?

No sane investor is going to buy debt of questionable legality, knowing that a subsequent judicial ruling could render it worthless.

[Fool Count]

26. Sane investor won't, but Federal Reserve will.

By invoking the 14th amendment the President will in effect claim the authority to print new money in quantities needed to pay all
US government obligations. That's assuming that the Fed will be willing to go along, which is far from certain. The amount of new
money needed to pay the difference between expenses and revenues will be staggering - annual budget deficit is currently well
over $1 trillion, which is more than half of all USD now in circulation. USD will most certainly lose the status of world reserve currency
and much of its value in respect to other currencies and commodities as a result. Huge inflation will certainly follow. But hey, at
least the default will be avoided, that's the most important thing, right?

[FSogol]

7. Get to the point. What are you trying to say?

:woohoo:

[jtown1123]

8. The House Democratic Caucus Supports this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/house-democratic-leaders-urge-obama-to-use-14th-amendment_n_910878.html

[SoCalDem]

10. Better yet,

Go back in time, and STFU about invoking it.. bargain in good faith and then when the assholes cannot get it done.. JUST DO IT..


Dems spend waaaay too much time at microphones laying out their "I'm-a-gonna-do"s, which only gives the other side (media included) ample time to tear that possibility down..

[MrDiaz]

11. I DON'T UNDERSTAND

Why is everyone saying this shit, it is not an option. Everyone who is suggesting this is suggesting that President Obama should BREAK THE LAW. This is not only despicable, but it kinda seems like if the right wing would have done something like you are suggesting we would be all over their ass.

[MrNJ]

13. exactly

It's as if some people want our President to be impeached.

[MrDiaz]

14. The way I see it

Is most of the dems on DU are just playing a football game. If your party is in office, do whatever you want, but when its not argue everything. Now what does that remind me of???

[Kingofalldems]

18. Most Dems on DU?

You speak as if you are a republican.

[DainBramaged]

20. I noticed that. They usually leave out the profile

And speak as if this is a foreign country

[DainBramaged]

22. Something Repukers squeal about like pigs

[DainBramaged]

21. God maybe you got lost on your way here?

[Motown_Johnny]

27. there are two conflicting laws, if the ceiling is not raised by Congress one will be broken

no matter what.

To allow a default would violate the 14th. You could even argue that allowing the serious possibility of a default violates the 14th.


http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

^snip^

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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.






If no agreement is reached then either the debt ceiling law will be broken or the Constitution will be violated.


The way to go would seem to be to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the debt ceiling just prior to invoking the 14th. This way you get to attack that law and justify the constitutional position.

[helderheid]

31. What?? According to article 14 section 4 on the constitution, having a debt ceiling...

Is unconstitutional. This is America and we pay our bills.

[damntexdem]

15. For my invocation I turn to Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 4.

And, lo, the Lord said unto ...
oops, I mean:
"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."

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[csziggy]

19. No where in the Constitution is there any mention of a debt ceiling

So does that make one unconstitutional?

In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."

There is a clear distinction between the power of the Congress to control or interdict the contracts of private parties when they interfere with the exercise of its constitutional authority <294 U.S. 330, 351> and the power of the Congress to alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements when it has borrowed money under the authority which the Constitution confers. In authorizing the Congress to borrow money, the Constitution empowers the Congress to fix the amount to be borrowed and the terms of payment. By virtue of the power to borrow money 'on the credit of the United States,' the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give, its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.

We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, in so far as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&invol=330#354

This decision seems to say that any attempt by Congress to prevent paying of lawful debts of the US government are unconstitutional. Since the obligation the US government is now negotiating with itself to pay off were incurred by Congress, they must, according to this decision, authorize payment. I would think this is pertinent to the Social Security obligations held by the government, also.

The interesting thing is that this decision was before the modern implication of the debt ceiling was passed by Congress so the two issues have not been considered together, so far as I know.

Here is a brief history of the debt ceiling:
http://freegovreports.com/index.php/finance/193-a-brief-history-of-the-us-federal-debt-limit

[yodermon]

29. If a Statute (debt ceiling) conflicts with the Constitution (14th amendment)

The constitution wins.

Ergo, if the debt ceiling law "questions the validity" of the U.S. Debt (i.e., there are not enough funds to pay interest on the debt), then, per the Constitution, funds *must* be procured to service the debt.

However, Constitutionally, the only body who can procure funds (via borrowing or taxation) is Congress (not the President).

So, Congress, as a body, is violating the Constitution. If it were the President, he can be impeached. If it's the Congress, what's the remedy?

(The Coin seigniorage option may be technically legal but it would appear tricky & hokey to the public; not sure if the admin. would fly with this. But it it's literally the only option...)

(edit for sp.)

[former9thward]

33. So in your view laws on taxation are unconstitutional.

Why is borrowing the only way to pay debts? Why can't the president declare that under the 14 Amendment tax rates limit the ability to get revenue and so they are unconstitutional and he can just raise tax rates on his own. Makes as much sense as being about to unilaterally raise the borrowing limit.

[DainBramaged]

23. best case scenario he gets voted out next election

Are you fucking serious?

[spanone]

24. not too transparent, eh?

[DainBramaged]

25. I gets 'em like a magnet in a steel plant......

:hi:

[Motown_Johnny]

28. you really don't get it.

there are two conflicting laws



if the President allows a default he can be impeached for violating the constitution


if he invokes the 14th he can be impeached for violating the debt ceiling law




the stronger argument is to refer straight to the constitution and to challenge the constitutionality of the debt ceiling


this should be able to be drawn out long enough to make it a major issue in next year's election

[B Calm]

32. BINGO!

[helderheid]

30. YES!

[Ter]

34. This would make Roe vs. Wade look clear by comparison

Although pro-choice, I always believed Roe vs. Wade was a terrible decision, as there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, thus no constitutional right to one (if there's a "right to privacy" to do what you want with your own body, why can't you smoke weed). This 14th Amendment option would be even more vague. Wake up, folks. If it's not specifically in the Constitution, there is no right to stand by it.

[msanthrope]

35. On the first day of civics class, one learns why that viewpoint is facile.

There's plenty of stuff that isn't in the Constitution, and yet, is still a constitutionally-protected right, privilege, or doctrine.

That's because the needs of a well-ordered republic dedicated to Liberty demand more complex thought than mere Originalism.

Do you realize that "innocence prior to a finding of guilt" is not in the Constitution? Neither is "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Nor is "jury of your peers." But if you or yours were standing in the dock, I seriously doubt that you'd argue you didn't have a Constitutional right to these things.

Why can you argue you have the right to those things? Because due process (in the Constitution, fyi) demands these things.

It is the same with the right to privacy. Liberty (see your Constitution) demands privacy, and dignity. Thus a whole host of SCOTUS decisions about our bodies and our relationships define our rights in Liberty. From Liberty comes my right to make medical decisions that affect my body. Liberty.