Segami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:35 PM
Original message |
How Would the Supreme Court Rule on Obama RAISING The DEBT CEILING Himself? |
|
:smoke: :smoke: " “I’ve talked to my lawyers,” President Obama said in explaining his dismissal of the argument that Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes him to raise the debt ceiling if Congress fails to act. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.” But who are President Obama’s cowering lawyers, and why would the former constitutional law professor defer to their overly cautious prediction that the Supreme Court would rule against Obama if asked to adjudicate a dispute between the president and Congress? In fact, it’s far more likely that the Court would refuse to hear the case. And even if the justices did agree to hear it, the conservative justices would be torn between their dislike of Obama and their commitment to expanding executive power at all costs. If all the justices are true to their constitutional philosophies, the Court would rule for Obama by a lopsided margin.
As Matthew Zeitlin has argued in TNR, if Obama invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, the most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case. The conservative justices have long required clear evidence of legal “standing” before opening the courthouse door—something they showed in their recent 5-4 decision rejecting a taxpayer’s challenge to an Arizona school vouchers program—and it’s hard to imagine who could establish enough of a legal injury to establish standing in this case. Individual senators and representatives wouldn’t have standing to sue on their own, according to a 1997 Supreme Court precedent, and although the House and Senate could, in theory, pass a joint resolution asserting that the president has injured Congress by usurping its power, they’re unlikely to find the votes to do so. (If the House alone passed a resolution asserting a constitutional injury, its legal status is less certain.)
When it comes to individual taxpayers, they’re likely barred from establishing standing to sue by the definitive precedent on the debt clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the 1935 Perry case. In that case, a bondholder asserted that the Congressional joint resolution taking the U.S. off the gold standard violated section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, … shall not be questioned.” The Court, in an opinion that supports Obama’s position in every respect, expansively interpreted the constitutional text and said it did indeed prohibit any government policy that “concerns the integrity of the public obligations.” But the Court went on to say that although the bondholder had suffered a constitutional injury, he had no legal standing to sue, since it was impossible to calculate precisely how much of an economic loss he had suffered.
In addition to their concerns about legal standing, the conservative justices have also, in other cases, said that the courts should refuse to hear cases that raise “political questions”—in other words, cases that raise the possibility of “embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements” by the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court on the same legal issue. Nevertheless, Bush v. Gore showed that the conservative justices can abandon their longstanding devotion to construing standing requirements narrowly and the “political question” doctrine broadly when their political passions are high. So let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that the Roberts Court agreed to hear the case of Obama v. Boehner and decide it on the merits. How would the justices rule?
cont'
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/92884/supreme-court-obama-debt-ceiling
.
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:39 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Pelosi 'Clearly' Backs 14th Amendment Option In Debt Standoff, Congressman Reports |
Segami
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Obama should get this show on the road and pull the 14th Amendment trigger. |
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:41 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Opinion from Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School |
|
SNIP The final possibility is that members of Congress will sue the president for ignoring the debt ceiling. Under existing Supreme Court precedents, groups of individual congressmen would not probably have standing to sue. It is possible that a contrived suit could be created by bond holders, but courts will probably see through it. Moreover, even if the bond holders have standing, the courts will likely treat the constitutional issues as nonjusticiable under the "political question" doctrine, as they do in the case of war powers. SNIP http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
|
NYC Liberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:45 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Thing is, Obama wouldn't be in the wrong if there was no precedent against it. |
|
If the Supreme Court ultimately strikes it down, then Obama can just say, "Well going forward I know I can't do it again."
|
flamingdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:46 PM
Response to Original message |
5. From another thread: No one may want to buy debt that is in a legal limbo |
|
so that may have put the nail in the coffin of that idea.
|
DURHAM D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Care to explain exactly what "buy debt" means to you. |
flamingdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. It's what the Chinese and others do to keep us floatin' nt |
DURHAM D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. The debt ceiling extension is just about paying existing bills. nt |
flamingdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
16. But if the 14th is used instability will impact the decisions of debt buyers |
|
= economic losses big time..
|
creeksneakers2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
to declare that Republicans won't be a party to redeeming bonds that were unlawfully issued.
|
MadHound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 09:50 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Above and beyond the legal precedents and niceties is one stark fact. |
|
The Court, as with the rest of our government to some extent or another, is beholden to Corporate America.
The question is does Corporate America want our economy to collapse, after all, for them it is a buying opportunity for them, or do they want to continue to make money with America Inc. Therein lies the answer to your question.
|
Jack Sprat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 10:05 PM
Response to Original message |
10. My question is not how they might rule |
|
or if they would rule on it at all, but how long could the Executive stave off the case being brought before the SCOTUS. Would it not be necessary to view the case in lower courts first? I'm betting a BushCo production of the same thing would amount to repeated extensions and delays, all kinds of stalling tactics in preparing their case, and every conceivable trick in the legal book used to stall it all off until after the next election. Of course, with Gonzales running Justice, Bush would have had a tool willing to throw himself and his career under the bus to assist.
|
LaydeeBug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 10:07 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Obama won't. He CLEARLY wanted this fake crisis so he could ram through the Corporate bidding |
Jack Sprat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
that you are wrong at the present time.
I will say for certain that anything is possible anymore.
|
Occulus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. Uh, that exact scenario has played out in the states. |
|
Specifically, states that border the Lakes.
I do not think it is coincidence that a fake crisis has been manufactured in those states, I do not think it is a coincidence that the majority of them border the Great Lakes, and I do not think it is a coincidence that these crises have led to a selloff off public grounds, facilities, and services.
This is a coup, it's been thirty years or more in the making, and the Plan, years long, continues. We are living the Shock Doctrine. It is a conspiracy. It is vast. The wealthiest people in the world are directly involved.
We are entering a new form of serfdom based upon economic access and status. I am very nearly violently opposed to such.
|
murielm99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 10:15 PM
Response to Original message |
13. I can only hope that he will show some leadership |
|
in the end.
I am beginning to think that he will not. He will capitulate.
|
Sportsguy
(389 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-30-11 10:41 PM
Response to Original message |
15. I Don't Know A Lot About This Kind Of Thing, But I Have A Question |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 08:40 AM
Response to Original message |