In 1952, Harry Truman invoked the 14th Amendment to

[MineralMan]

nationalize US steel mills at the beginning of the Korean War, in defiance of Congress. The Supreme Court declared his action to be unconstitutional in a precedent-setting decision. That's the only use by a President of that Amendment I could find. It had nothing to do with the debt ceiling. If someone can find another example, I'd be very interested in knowing about it.

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1394

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer

[HopeHoops]

1. I can't see the relevance of what Truman did to the 14th, but paying our debt is explicitly stated.

[MineralMan]

2. Some Congressman said that Truman invoked the 14th when

Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling. That was incorrect. He used it in another way and was shot down. The key to the ruling is that the President does not have extraordinary powers to bypass the decisions of Congress.

A number of posts on DU refer to that Congressman's erroneous claim. I posted this to clarify what Truman did and what the consequence of it was. Part of the government's argument in that case involved the 14th Amendment. That's the connection.

[elocs]

3. An earlier thread about Truman and the 14th:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1602126

[MineralMan]

4. Yes. The information Clyburn provided was incorrect.

No debt ceiling bill was involved. That quote is all over the Internet. Clyburn got it wrong. That's why I posted this.

[MineralMan]

6. The debt ceiling was never raised during the Truman

Administration.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2011/jul/21/richard-codey/new-jersey-sen-richard-codey-claims-every-presiden/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. That would be the Youngstown Sheet & Tube case.

The case involved the nationalization of steel mills during the Korean War to avoid a threatened strike. It did not definitively resolve questions of the extent of the authority of a president to act in an emergency. Black and Douglas took the absolutist position and said the president lacks that authority unless specifically authorized by Congress; but the case was ultimately decided on the narrower issue of whether the president had the emergency authority to seize private property.

The actual extent of a president's emergency powers remains unresolved. C.J. Roberts recently cited Youngstown Steel in Medellin v. Texas for the proposition that a president's authority must derive either from an act of Congress or the Constitution itself. The present supreme court has deferred to the president's authority in matters of foreign policy, but has also held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the president (Bush) did not have the authority to set up military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees. Interestingly, in his disssent Clarence Thomas cited Youngstown to argue that Bush's decision to try Hamdan before a military commission was constitutional because Congress had authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to prevent future acts of terrorism when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

This will be a very sticky constitutional wicket. The current court is more sympathetic to executive power than the Youngstown court, so would their bias toward executive power overcome their bias against Obama?

[joeybee12]

7. I agree...it's not clear-cut and remains unresolved especially since there

were so many individual opinions issued by the justices...why not use it and see what happens?

[MineralMan]

9. Very risky, I think. If he uses it, it sets up an immediate

separation of powers issue, and would require an emergency session of the SCOTUS to settle the issue. Given the current makeup of the court, I can't imagine that they wouldn't find a way to disallow the action. In the meantime, nothing much would get done by a House of Representative in the middle of an impeachment proceeding. Worse, if overturned, the debt ceiling would return to its old figure and we'd be underwater on the debt.

The potential for disaster is strong, it seems to me.

[quiller4]

13. No. Just as in the Truman case the issue would be dealt with

by the Supremes in regular session. Truman's seizure worked even though it was later ruled unconstitutional. Obama's action could work even if it was declared unconstitutional 9 months later.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, but they're also heavily biased toward conservative views.

My real point for this post was to refute Clyburn's statement that Truman had used the 14th to bypass a failed debt ceiling congressional decision. The debt ceiling was never raised during Truman's presidency. Clyburn got it wrong. The only connection with the 14th Amendment and Truman is in the example I offered, and it's a tenuous connection at best. The fact that someone says that Truman used it with a debt ceiling issue is incorrect, but the case mentioned does have some relevance. Strictly interpreted, I don't see the 14th as permitting the debt ceiling action. To broad and not specific with regard to separation of powers. I think the SCOTUS would dump on it vigorously.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2011/jul/21/richard-codey/new-jersey-sen-richard-codey-claims-every-presiden/

[MineralMan]

10. Right. The Wikipedia link has an overview of the case.

[leveymg]

11. End run around the 14th is the emergency powers of the Fed already used to issue $16T in

loans to distressed banks under QE2. The Fed will cover the banks losses (and indirectly the public's) when and if federal checks stop going out. Please see the thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1604107

[MineralMan]

12. I saw that thread. Thanks.

That's another approach. I'm not sure it can work, but it's another way of looking at things for sure. I don't know enough about the Fed's powers to interpret it.

Makes more sense than the $1 Trillion coin deal, certainly. Lots of wacky ideas out there, it seems.

[leveymg]

14. The Fed already used its emergency powers in QE2. 16T didn't hyperinflate. They'll do it again.

QE3.

Calm. Don't let the pols stampede us into another Raw Deal.

[Scurrilous]

15. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup: