UCLA Law Professor says "In this instance, the President CAN use the 14th Amendment!"

[in_cog_ni_to]

Didn't catch his name, but he was just on Lawrence O'Donnell. :)

Since this is a MANUFACTURED CRISIS...Obama can invoke the 14th Amendment. I agree!

[elleng]

1. Zaslaff. Excellent discussion.

[rucky]

2. Obama v. US Congress

to be decided by SCOTUS

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Impeaching Clinton really worked out well for them, eh?

He left office with a 65% approval rating! The highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

LET THEM JUST TRY TO IMPEACH OBAMA. They will regret it.

[Chan790]

8. Does Congress have standing?

That's an odd question, but I don't think the GOP alone has standing unless they control both chambers.

[msanthrope]

10. Any member has standing to file.

Where is goes from there is anyone's guess.

[indepat]

41. The felonious five would surely assure a 5-4 decision against Obama showing

their felonious acts will get even feloniouser than before imnsho. :patriot:

[KittysRfuzzy]

42. Then let the right wingers of the SC do it

It is Obama's duty to protect us from terrorists. Obama needs to start using that word 'terrorists when referring to those holding us hostage.

[cabot]

3. not an american

and have very little understanding of the US constitution but i hope this is true. these right-wing fucktards are trying to ruin the country. america deserves better than a bunch of snivelling cowards who want to ruin the US rather than have a democratic president have any success.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Thank you for caring! Here's the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

We have a double whammy on us.....they HATE Democrats and they REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HATE African Americans. :( They will do whatever it takes to try to destroy the Democratic Party and this African American President. That's how ignorant these people are.

[cabot]

14. thanks!

it seems clear to me, though obviously i'm no constitutional scholar, that he does have the authority. i just wish obama would stop with the "compromise" meme. it doesn't work.

and we in canada care....your crazies might affect our crazies and then what would we do? :) i just hope the american people realize what kind of damage the teapublicans are doing to the nation. it is essentially treasonous. they are attempting a bloodless coup, in a weird way.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. If any country should be concerned, it should be Canada. Hopefully,

Teabaggitis isn't contagious! These thugs are like nothing we've ever witnessed. A huge group of sociopaths is a dangerous thing!
A bloodless coup is a great description. That's exactly what they're trying to do. They are forcing him to use the 14th Amendment because they think they can impeach him. Ha! It didn't work with the Clinton Impeachment and it won't work this time either. They NEVER learn from their mistakes.

[cabot]

19. just know the majority of canadians

are amazed at the stupidity of the republican party. i don't think we are in danger of teabaggers infesting the country but it pays to stay vigilant. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. LOL.... :) Good. At least it's not just us who think they're insane. n/t

[Samantha]

4. He referred to the extended powers of the presidency

and said Obama had the authority as President to avoid a Constitutional crisis, which defaulting on its debts would be. In that regard, and not for political purposes, and because the debt has already been incurred, Obama could lift the debt ceiling on his own. WOW.

Did you hear that McConnell has refused to negotiate with Reid and will only negotiate with Obama? Otherwise, the Republicans will filibuster the bill the Senate produces.

[Samantha]

7. PS He also said the Republicans ARE using the debt ceiling

for political purposes, which further enables Obama to lift the ceiling.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Thank You for explaining what he said. I caught, literally, the last 10 seconds when he said

BO COULD INVOKE the 14th Amendment.

[DURHAM D]

5. Best discussion I have heard on the 14th.

So Obama has been talking about prioritizing what bills to pay - who will get paid and who won't if the ceiling is not raised. From that conversation it is clearly unconstitutional for Obama to use such a list.

Didn't Obama's legal team explain to him that his solution can't be used? I am tired of hearing that Obama is a constitutional scholar. Apparently not so much...

[Samantha]

9. I could not agree more

but yes he was a Constitutional professor, but even they disagree on interpretations of the Constitution.

[DURHAM D]

12. There is a vast difference between being a con law professor and

being a constitutional scholar. I don't think Obama would claim to be a scholar - its just his supporters that were trying to cover for him because he doesn't want to use the 14th. IMO - he doesn't want to use it because of his 2006 vote (and unfortunate statement) and his avoidance of voting on it at all in 2007 and 2008.

[Samantha]

25. No, the Chicago University of Law said he was a professor

and obama has apologized for that vote. But he knew the bill would pass without his vote.

[DURHAM D]

27. No what? Don't understand your response.

[Samantha]

39. I think I misunderstood your post

There was an ongoing argument about whether he was a Constitutional law professor or a Constitutional scholar who lectured at the University of Chicago Law School. When asked, the University confirmed he was a professor. I misunderstood what you were saying and was trying to say he was in fact a professor.

I am so tired from following this debt ceiling debacle I can't see straight. Sorry.

Sam

[Samantha]

40. Okay, I see what you saying now

Yes, that was an unfortunate vote, but he did make a public apology for that. I heard him on cable discussing it, and he knew the vote would pass anyway. It was a symbolic thing for him, but he does regret it. I don't know why he missed the other two.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. EXACTLY.

This is what I've been saying. Absent a debt limit hike Obama is going to go into the congress biz.

Either:
a) he's going to order the treasury to issue the necessary debt, OR
b) he's going to rewrite the US budget to fit his sense of priorities and the existing revenue.

Which is the bigger constitutional transgression?

[creeksneakers2]

15. Most of the experts who say Obama can seize power

Aren't using the Fourteenth. They are saying the president has inherent powers to act in the event of an emergency. That's a vague and dangerous idea. Who is to say what is an emergency? Where is a check and balance?

This is an even worse idea than the Fourteenth, because it leaves power so unbridled.

[NYC Liberal]

16. Even though the 14th Amendment specifically says only Congress can enforce it?

"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Was that discussed?

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. They refuse to enforce it. That gives Obama the power to do it himself.

He's obligated to enforce it for the good of the country.

Section 4 states:

Section 4. 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.

[NYC Liberal]

21. It's iffy. I agree that barring any precedent against it, he could probably do it.

Even if it got struck down, he could argue there was no precedent against it and just say, "Well next time I guess we can't do that."

But I think it's a solution that should be pursued only if time runs out and Congress refuses to pass anything.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. And I think that's the card he's holding close to his chest.

He'll do it when he has no other option.

[NYC Liberal]

26. Yeah, he can't do it when Congress is still debating. He has to be able to say,

"Look, Congress refuses to act and this is an emergency. I have to act now." If Congress is still in session and a bill is still on the table, he won't be able to (credibly) claim that.

The right-wingers will scream no matter what, but I think the average American will accept it if it really comes down to that.

[csziggy]

34. The 14th Amendment has been used against Congress, also

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."<49> Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the president unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Validity_of_public_debt

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , ... shall not be questioned.' While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

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

[NYC Liberal]

37. Yes, however those were specific laws passed by Congress that were struck down.

voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."

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

Those cases didn't say the authority does not rest with Congress. They said those specific laws went beyond the power granted to Congress by the 14th Amendment.

*As I said though -- absent a precedent specifically denying the president the power to act to uphold the provisions of the amendment I think Obama could make an argument that he is justified in doing so. The president's job is to execute the law, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It may be struck down, but he wouldn't have broken the law if the courts have never ruled otherwise. He could just say, "Well the courts have decided the issue and we now know what we can and can't do going forward."

[SlimJimmy]

38. Congress is not trying to override their obligations in this case.

There is no legislation in place that attempts to avoid specific debts (as in the cited case). Raising the debt ceiling is merely the *preferred* way to pay our obligations; through more borrowing.

[DearAbby]

23. Interesting argument

I can see the relevance.

[SusanaMontana41]

24. If only Obama would do this. But

he wants a "grand bargain." I doubt he'd take a clean raise of the ceiling.

This fake debate is all about him now.

[sendero]

28. Obama does not have the huevos.

... to do anything so daring.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. And the reason he's not, is? nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. Waiting until he has exhausted all options?

That's my guess. :)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Hmmm... maybe I just don't understand what I'm watching. nt

[Pirate Smile]

36. It would make no sense for him to signal that he would use it ahead of time because that would just

let the Congress blow it off believing there was a 14th Amendment escape valve that the President could use - so they don't need to actually do their friggin job.

[jtrockville]

30. University of California? The same folks who employ Yoo?

Not sure they have any respectability/credibility.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Turns out that torture was legal. Who knew?

Bush didn't get impeached for following Yoo's advice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Can someone explain his argument to me?

When you say "can use", I presume you mean "can use it to order the Treasury to borrow new money to pay all government bills for normal legal operations that flow from the previously agreed duties of the government", yes? Because that's the point here, isn't it? Whether the President should be calling all government payments (social security, medicare, medicaid, salaries, etc. - normal bills like utilities, and existing contracts with any government contractors, I suppose)'debts' that have to be honoured, according to the Constitution?