Democrats say Obama should invoke 14th Amendment

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"House Democrats said Wednesday that President Barack Obama should invoke a little-known constitutional provision to prevent the nation from going into default if Congress fails to come up with a plan to raise the debt ceiling.

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, a member of the Democratic leadership, said he told fellow Democrats that Obama should both veto any House GOP plan for a short-term extension of the debt ceiling and invoke the 14th amendment, which says that the validity of the nation's public debt "shall not be questioned."

The White House has rejected resorting to this tactic to keep the nation from defaulting, questioning its legality, but Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, who chairs the Democratic caucus, said "we're getting down to decision time" and "we have to have a failsafe mechanism and we believe that failsafe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States."

Larson said Clyburn's proposal on the 14th Amendment was met with applause by other Democrats at their meeting."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQOSrADJhUzbjUM5Q5_1tyhnmzTA?docId=b049d6aa7ca64e96825ec5b6f3624530

[BeyondGeography]

1. Yup

[gateley]

2. Since it appears it's not being considered (per Carney, for

what I'm sure they consider good, and possibly correct, reasons), it would only be right if Obama were to explain to those members WHY he isn't going to pursue that option. I know he doesn't have to, but it would be nice.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

19. A NY Times column points out that what Carney says now may be strategic--

when you're trying to get agreement on a debt ceiling extension, you don't want to acknowledge that there is any alternative to such an agreement. But the White House strategy on the 14th could well change as time runs out. And the President's Executive Order power in emergencies does not even depend on any section of any amendment! See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html?pagewanted=print

[gateley]

20. Good point -- it's not as though they are going to lay all their

cards on the table before the play (or whatever analogy I'm trying to grasp, here). VERY good point. Hmmmmm. And come to think of it, I'm not sure I've heard Obama himself say "no" -- just "I'm confident we'll reach an agreement" if the question is asked. Hmmmmm.

[Ship of Fools]

3. What would result?

If it got to SCOTUS, would it pass muster? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'd like to hear what the brains out there think ... Thanks!

[elleng]

7. Would work immediately, imo. SCOTUS down the road.

Last ditch, so mebbe he/they're considering it for Monday eve, but don't want to telegraph it now.

[CarmanK]

4. The repugs will spend 2012 Trying to IMPEACH HIM!!

It will be another stall tactic. They do nothing and the President loses another year fighting off the idiots while, they make points with voters and continue their program of permanent power. This is bad for the country.

[Ship of Fools]

8. I thought that would be the case, too -- and if he was to be re-elected,

impeachment proceedings would go on for the next four years.

just one woman's opinion

[WI_DEM]

14. Good! that backfired on them with Clinton and it would back fire on them in '12

the senate would never convict.

[Wait Wut]

18. My fear, as well.

We don't need the distraction and I'm sure he has enough on his plate without an insane court case for dessert.

However, I have a sick feeling that he's considering it because of the way things are going. While the option is attractive, I sincerely hope that it's the very, very last card he'll consider playing.

[Poll_Blind]

5. How about getting a clean debt ceiling raise and just letting Bush Tax Cuts expire? $3.8 Trillion!

Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire in 2012 would save $3.8 TRILLION over 10 years.

New video in the DU Video forum with his comments here at DU:
DeFazio: "It's Clear That Congress Especially The Senate Is Good At One Thing & That Is Nothing!"

PB

[Zebedeo]

6. The president does not get to decide that a law is unconstitutional

That is the province of the judicial branch of government. If a president could violate a law just by declaring it unconstitutional, there would be catastrophic consequences for our system of checks and balances. Imagine a President Perry with the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Like, oh, I don't know, HCR. Or maybe he could override Roe v. Wade by declaring that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Do we really want to set a precedent that the president has that power?

[pitohui]

9. what is the relevance of your remark to the issue at hand?

the 14th amendment to the constitution was passed into law some years ago, if you check your history books

[Zebedeo]

21. The relevance is this:

The proposed "invoking" of the 14th Amendment would involve President Obama declaring that the Public Debt Acts of 1939 and 1941 are unconstitutional, and openly violating them.

My point is that if we were to say presidents can do that, we might not like the results when the president is a Republican.

[Enrique]

10. that's how laws are tested

Obama wouldn't decide it, the judicial branch would. Which is how it's supposed to work.

[Fool Count]

24. No, it's not how it's supposed to work.

If someone (i.e. the President) thinks that any law is unconstitutional and has proper standing, he can refer this issue to an
appropriate court (i.e. the Supreme Court) which will then decide on the merits of the case. Following the decision, and
assuming all available appeals are exhausted, the law in question is either upheld or stricken down. No one, not even
a President, has the authority to violate any laws, even the ones he might consider unconstitutional. That's how it's
supposed to work.

[Ship of Fools]

11. Might he avoid a tactic that might be considered unconstitutional?

Is that why they insist it's "not on the table?" I think they should go for it, although then they'd have to deal with the fallout (impeachment attempts...)

Whatever happens, what an effing complete waste of time and resources. We should be well into debating environmental policies before we all die of thirst/hunger...Amazing what a few morons have done to the very future of the human race, imo!!!!!!!!

[unblock]

13. you seem to be suggesting that the president should act with complete disregard for the constitution

and then let the supreme court decide.

or perhaps more likely, you read the o.p. differently than i did.

but congress and the president should try to adhere to the constitution at all times. yes, the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter, but that doesn't mean that congress and the president should take actions they believe (or should believe) to be unconstitutional just because the supreme court can decide opine on the matter some years later.

for instance, the first amendment starts with "congess shall make no law..." it does not start with "congress shall make any law it pleases and the supreme court shall later review it...".

if the president believes that the 14th amendment doesn't legally give him the power to borrow funds to pay u.s. debts, then he shouldn't do it.


unless you want a president, say, torturing people, knowing that the supreme court can so no, that's unconstitutional, some years later.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Legal scholars mostly disagree with you

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html

[WI_DEM]

12. It appears that Obama is too timid to do anything so bold.

[unblock]

15. i think the 14th amendment is a dead-end on this issue. i like this idea better:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1531957



the 14th amendment has several problems. for one thing, it doesn't say the president has authority that congress does not. for another thing, it only talks about debts, not spending. so at best it's a temporary solution, allowing borrowing as needed to pay ACTUAL DEBTS, but not allowing borrowing to fund new spending and authorizations. finally, it gives no guidance that borrowing is permitted but some other form of raising cash is not. the same logic that permits the president to unilaterally borrow to meet debt obligations also would permit the president to unilaterally raise taxes or levy tarriffs to meet debt obligations. does that sound right?

but the coin seigniorage thing sounds perfectly legal an unproblematic.

[Gabi Hayes]

22. remember the unitary executive theory, propounded by the warcrimes regime?

you can be certain they'd invoke whatever existing clause/amendment to the constitution to further their goal, and let public opinion be damned, as they have a packed SCOTUS to do their (should I say their masters'?) bidding

btw, there is precedent for using the 14th amendment in this manner, even beyond its provenance, arising from the civil war


here. even though Brookings Inst. believes it's a bad idea, I disagree, and the SCOTUS has ALREADY agreed that the president can DO IT:

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0707_debt_ceiling_galston.aspx

For their part, some Democrats have urged President Obama to invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” Doing so would plunge the government into uncharted constitutional waters and all-out partisan warfare.

On the one hand, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly vests the power to “borrow Money on the credit of the United States” in the legislative branch, casting doubt on the president’s ability to issue debt in the absence of congressional authorization.

On the other hand, the power to borrow money entails the obligation to repay it, and it is up to Congress to meet that obligation—a legal obligation reinforced by the 14th Amendment. While the amendment’s language is rooted in the specific circumstances of the Civil War, the Supreme Court has been inclined to read it more broadly. In Perry v. the United States, one of the Gold Standard cases decided in 1935, the Court declared that:

''The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the Government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations.''

[unblock]

23. i say it's a dead-end because it doesn't solve the problem even if it "works".

it lets the treasury borrow more in order to pay back EXISTING debts and pay interest on EXISTING debts and obligations.

but it does NOT say that treasury can borrow more for ADDITIONAL spending.

so while it could be used to make sure we don't default on interest payments or on social security obligations and so on, it doesn't help in terms of ordering new military supplies and equipment, new hires, and new spending in general.

[mmonk]

16. It isn't bipartisan and the President wouldn't be able to burnish his budget cutting bonafides.