Constitution Compels Obama To Bypass Congress And Raise Debt Ceiling Unilaterally

[eflatminor]

Poverty fell by huge margins after the war on poverty, and even now ,during the greatest recession we've had since the depression, it's still lower than it was before the war on poverty.

Spending on the war on poverty really took off in the late sixties. Whatever was spent in the early 60s was tiny... minuscule...compared to meteoric rise in spending over the last 40 years.

The government now has a new method by which they measure poverty in America. According to this new measure, 13.7 percent of Americans were poor in 1969. After spending trillions, the national poverty rate has climbed to 15.8 percent, according to the new Census Bureau measure. The previous measurements also showed 2 point increase.

Golden State turns to lead, now leads poverty rankings | The Daily Caller

You can play with dates and maybe find a time period in which the poverty rate was the same or even a slight decrease (1965 until 2007 is one such time period because the economy was good in 2007...duh), but that's disingenuous at best. Given the trillions spent and the drag on the economy for the taxes required to do so, the so called war on poverty have been a massive failure no matter how you look at it.

The poor are better off without your "help". For the money we've spent, there should have been a huge drop in the poverty rate. That just isn't the case. The meddling made things worse.

 

[freedombecki]

The debt discussed in the 14th is Civil War debt. It is not a discussion of debt in general and does not modify Article I Section 8.

Shall I quote the 14th for you too?

I can tell you see this purely in a black and white sense.

Can Obama Extend the Debt Ceiling on His Own? by Ronald Dworkin | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

"The “debt shall not be questioned” clause was added to the Fourteenth Amendment for a specific and immediate purpose: to prevent the new Southern members of Congress, should they gain a majority, from cancelling the debt the Union had incurred in the war. But constitutional interpretation is not a catalogue of historical anecdotes; it is a matter of principle and we are therefore required to identify the principle on which the authors of the clause had to rely. As Chief Justice Hughes said of the clause in 1935, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, “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 … ”

The general contours of that fundamental principle seem clear enough. Congress does not have authority, even by a substantial majority, to dishonor the nation by repudiating outstanding debts it has authorized the nation to incur. The fiscal integrity of the United States is sacred and requires constitutional protection.

However, it's grey enough that constitutional scholars, which I am not, are debating it. The only way the question could truly be answered would be for Obama to try it, and for it to go to the SC.

He has foisted on us 4 years without a budget. he can not even argue that Congress authorized anything, as everything since 2010 has been a special authorization.

What that means is that UNLESS Congress once again agrees to pass either a budget or a special authorization, the debt question REMAINS with the Congress.

Since the question of the debt ceiling will be in direct reference to a continuing resolution to authorize spending of ANY moneys.... The argument you have made has no bearing.

Now if Congress agreed to a budget or a special spending or a continuing resolution, then the 14th MIGHT apply.

Getting the point yet? The Presi8dent has zero authority to raise the debt ceiling or to authorize any spending.

he can claim all he wants that he won't negotiate but until or unless Congress authorizes more spending the 14th no matter how interpreted does not apply.

I hope you're right, but this administration knows how to push the envelope.

 

[AmyNation]

You are the one advocating for more laws that limit the people's right to choose a representative, not me. That is looking for government to intervene because you're worried others might make a choice you disagree with.

LMAO Term limits..THAT'S IT??? That's all you have. Don't you look pathetic now.

Um, no. Not term limits. Focus.

"Like the "fact" that you would have supported the murderer of 20 children being able to vote and run for public office? Save your Pollyanna advice liberal."

Remember this? You are the one advocating for limiting who can run as a representive, instead of trusting the people to choose.

 

[AmyNation]

Poverty fell by huge margins after the war on poverty, and even now ,during the greatest recession we've had since the depression, it's still lower than it was before the war on poverty.

Spending on the war on poverty really took off in the late sixties. Whatever was spent in the early 60s was tiny... minuscule...compared to meteoric rise in spending over the last 40 years.

The government now has a new method by which they measure poverty in America. According to this new measure, 13.7 percent of Americans were poor in 1969. After spending trillions, the national poverty rate has climbed to 15.8 percent, according to the new Census Bureau measure. The previous measurements also showed 2 point increase.

Golden State turns to lead, now leads poverty rankings | The Daily Caller

You can play with dates and maybe find a time period in which the poverty rate was the same or even a slight decrease (1965 until 2007 is one such time period because the economy was good in 2007...duh), but that's disingenuous at best. Given the trillions spent and the drag on the economy for the taxes required to do so, the so called war on poverty have been a massive failure no matter how you look at it.

The poor are better off without your "help". For the money we've spent, there should have been a huge drop in the poverty rate. That just isn't the case. The meddling made things worse.

Poverty was at 19% in 1964, and is at 15% now. I don't really want to get into a "new way" to measure poverty. I'm not suggesting entitlement programs are working well now or arent in need of serious reform, but the stark drop off in poverty after 1964 is a testiment to LBJ and the war on poverty.

 

[freedombecki]

Glenn Reynolds has a great line today:

WELL, THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION FREED SLAVES, AND UNLIMITED DEBT ENSLAVES THE FREE: Democratic Rep.: Debt-ceiling blank check is like Emancipation Proclamation

Instapundit

I cannot believe a Congressman would be so willing to turn over power on the basis of partisanship rather than on what the Constitution says.

I hope voters in his district are smarter than he is and vote him out in the next election, or that his fellows will impeach him for not supporting the Constitution, which he and the President are supposed to do.

 

[Doubletap]

Try reading ours.

All of the Obama hand-outs are at the expense of others.

 

[eflatminor]

Poverty fell by huge margins after the war on poverty, and even now ,during the greatest recession we've had since the depression, it's still lower than it was before the war on poverty.

Spending on the war on poverty really took off in the late sixties. Whatever was spent in the early 60s was tiny... minuscule...compared to meteoric rise in spending over the last 40 years.

The government now has a new method by which they measure poverty in America. According to this new measure, 13.7 percent of Americans were poor in 1969. After spending trillions, the national poverty rate has climbed to 15.8 percent, according to the new Census Bureau measure. The previous measurements also showed 2 point increase.

Golden State turns to lead, now leads poverty rankings | The Daily Caller

You can play with dates and maybe find a time period in which the poverty rate was the same or even a slight decrease (1965 until 2007 is one such time period because the economy was good in 2007...duh), but that's disingenuous at best. Given the trillions spent and the drag on the economy for the taxes required to do so, the so called war on poverty have been a massive failure no matter how you look at it.

The poor are better off without your "help". For the money we've spent, there should have been a huge drop in the poverty rate. That just isn't the case. The meddling made things worse.

Poverty was at 19% in 1964, and is at 15% now. I don't really want to get into a "new way" to measure poverty. I'm not suggesting entitlement programs are working well now or arent in need of serious reform, but the stark drop off in poverty after 1964 is a testiment to LBJ and the war on poverty.

Yea, the poverty rate did drop between 1964 and 1969, a time when the economy boomed and more importantly, a time period during which entitlements were TINY TINY TINY compared to today. Would LOVE to go back to that level of entitlement spending! Please!

That doesn't change the fact that since entitlement spending REALLY got going around 1970, the poverty rate is up. Best case you can make, it kept things even. MY GOODNESS! Who would invest TRILLIONS of dollars for a return of 'about even'? That's insane.

Then there's the cycle of dependency that breeds so many unproductive lives. It breaks my heart.

 

[AmyNation]

Again, I agree with you on the issues with entitlements. I think what worked in 1964, is not always going to work in 2013, and I think there is a serious issue with short term success vs long term consequences.

 

[eflatminor]

I think there is a serious issue with short term success vs long term consequences.

On that we agree.

 

[boedicca]

Poverty fell by huge margins after the war on poverty, and even now ,during the greatest recession we've had since the depression, it's still lower than it was before the war on poverty.

The lengths you liberals will go through to carry the dirty water of a Progressive Fascist movement is astounding.

I can't help it if the facts don't fit your world view.

The clinical term for your condition is: Projection.

 

[AmyNation]

The lengths you liberals will go through to carry the dirty water of a Progressive Fascist movement is astounding.

I can't help it if the facts don't fit your world view.

The clinical term for your condition is: Projection.

So, you're also part of the "poverty didn't fall after ljbs war on poverty, and its worse now than it was than" bandwagon.

Not surprising.

 

[Star]

Spending on the war on poverty really took off in the late sixties. Whatever was spent in the early 60s was tiny... minuscule...compared to meteoric rise in spending over the last 40 years.

The government now has a new method by which they measure poverty in America. According to this new measure, 13.7 percent of Americans were poor in 1969. After spending trillions, the national poverty rate has climbed to 15.8 percent, according to the new Census Bureau measure. The previous measurements also showed 2 point increase.

Golden State turns to lead, now leads poverty rankings | The Daily Caller

You can play with dates and maybe find a time period in which the poverty rate was the same or even a slight decrease (1965 until 2007 is one such time period because the economy was good in 2007...duh), but that's disingenuous at best. Given the trillions spent and the drag on the economy for the taxes required to do so, the so called war on poverty have been a massive failure no matter how you look at it.

The poor are better off without your "help". For the money we've spent, there should have been a huge drop in the poverty rate. That just isn't the case. The meddling made things worse.

Poverty was at 19% in 1964, and is at 15% now. I don't really want to get into a "new way" to measure poverty. I'm not suggesting entitlement programs are working well now or arent in need of serious reform, but the stark drop off in poverty after 1964 is a testiment to LBJ and the war on poverty.

Yea, the poverty rate did drop between 1964 and 1969, a time when the economy boomed and more importantly, a time period during which entitlements were TINY TINY TINY compared to today. Would LOVE to go back to that level of entitlement spending! Please!

That doesn't change the fact that since entitlement spending REALLY got going around 1970, the poverty rate is up. Best case you can make, it kept things even. MY GOODNESS! Who would invest TRILLIONS of dollars for a return of 'about even'? That's insane.

Then there's the cycle of dependency that breeds so many unproductive lives. It breaks my heart.

LOL - Poverty is up?-----up from what?
Up from down, as AmyNation's chart shows. After LBJ declared war on poverty, the poverty rate dropped-----dropped and has never returned to the levels of pre-war on poverty levels and-----and, please note, the peaks in poverty are during Republican administrations - the valleys are during Democratic administrations.

There are two things to note here. First, there was a huge fall in the poverty rate throughout the 1960s, and in particular after LBJ announced the War on Poverty in 1964 and followed up with Medicaid, Medicare, greater federal housing spending, and other programs to fight that war. In 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. Ten years later, it was 11.2 percent, and it has not gone above 15.2 percent any year since then. Contrary to what you [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-Social-19501980/dp/1455165832"]may have heard[/ame], the best evidence indicates that the War on Poverty made a [ame="http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-unfinished-war-on-poverty/"]real and lasting difference[/ame].​

In order to recreate those halcyon days that you're referencing, we would also have to go back to the same tax rates that contributed to those days, right?
.

​

.​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think it would be detrimental to Obama to attempt to use the 14th to bypass congress. It will of course end up in the SC, and could very well lead to his impeachment, depending on their interpretation.

Actually not.

The courts refuse to address conflicts between Congress and the president based on separation of powers doctrine, and the fact that members of Congress lack standing. See: Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F. 3d 19 - Court of Appeals, Dist. Of Columbia. The Supreme Court subsequently refused to grant cert to review the lower court’s ruling.

There would also be no grounds for impeachment, as the president has broken no laws.

But it would be detrimental to the president politically.

That this is even being considered, of course, is ridiculous, the consequence of republicans in the House yet again playing politics with our Nation’s financial wellbeing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are the one advocating for more laws that limit the people's right to choose a representative, not me. That is looking for government to intervene because you're worried others might make a choice you disagree with.

LMAO Term limits..THAT'S IT??? That's all you have. Don't you look pathetic now.

Um, no. Not term limits. Focus.

"Like the "fact" that you would have supported the murderer of 20 children being able to vote and run for public office? Save your Pollyanna advice liberal."

Remember this? You are the one advocating for limiting who can run as a representive, instead of trusting the people to choose.

Well except felons can't run for office. AT least not high office. Is it not telling you do not mind if a mass murderer is elected to high office?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think it would be detrimental to Obama to attempt to use the 14th to bypass congress. It will of course end up in the SC, and could very well lead to his impeachment, depending on their interpretation.

Actually not.

The courts refuse to address conflicts between Congress and the president based on separation of powers doctrine, and the fact that members of Congress lack standing. See: Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F. 3d 19 - Court of Appeals, Dist. Of Columbia. The Supreme Court subsequently refused to grant cert to review the lower court’s ruling.

There would also be no grounds for impeachment, as the president has broken no laws.

But it would be detrimental to the president politically.

That this is even being considered, of course, is ridiculous, the consequence of republicans in the House yet again playing politics with our Nation’s financial wellbeing.

If the President clearly violates the Constitution then the Courts have no choice but to intervene.Article I Section 8 is clear it states clearly that the power to authorize borrowing resides in Congress. There is no more compelling issue then enforcing the clear edicts of the Constitution.

 

[Flopper]

Let him try. It will go to Court and he will lose. Only Congress can authorize spending. Not the President. Since we haven't had a budget in 4 years he can not even use that to claim he has authority.

If Congress did not raise the debt limit, and emergency procedures to raise cash does not provide sufficient funds to meet government obligations, I have no doubt the president would act unilaterally. The one thing the US government can not do is fail to make good on it's contracts and debt obligations that are due. If that would happen the market value of treasury bills would fall like a rock as would the value of thousands of pensions funds, financial institutions, stocks, and bonds. Remember, there is only one thing that keeps the boat afloat. People have faith in the US government to meet it's obligations. If that faith is destroyed, then everything comes down like a house of cards.

Congress would have to be totally insane to allow this to happen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let him try. It will go to Court and he will lose. Only Congress can authorize spending. Not the President. Since we haven't had a budget in 4 years he can not even use that to claim he has authority.

If Congress did not raise the debt limit, and emergency procedures to raise cash does not provide sufficient funds to meet government obligations, I have no doubt the president would act unilaterally. The one thing the US government can not do is fail to make good on it's contracts and debt obligations that are due. If that would happen the market value of treasury bills would fall like a rock as would the value of thousands of pensions funds, financial institutions, stocks, and bonds. Remember, there is only one thing that keeps the boat afloat. People have faith in the US government to meet it's obligations. If that faith is destroyed, then everything comes down like a house of cards.

Congress would have to be totally insane to allow this to happen.

And that would be members of the TPM, who are willing to destroy the Nation to blindly adhere to their reckless fiscal agenda.

 

[Darkwind]

Reread the Constitution. Only Congress has the authority to BORROW. Shall I go find it for you?

Article I section 8

To borrow money on the credit of the United States

Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Congress shall have power

Article I Section 8 United States Constitution


I seen nothing there about the Executive being allowed to borrow or spend money without the prior approval of the Congress (Specifically, the House of Representatives)

 

[Darkwind]

Since the Congress has the responsibility to meet obligations rendered, they will have to cut, from the budget, enough spending to meet the obligations.

Since Defense is the number one priority of any government and the first priority of our government is to safeguard us against ALL enemies, that leaves the entitlement programs that must be cut.

I would also suggest passing legislation that will eliminate unfunded obligations to the States, and spending to all other nations on the planet.

 

[Darkwind]

Let him try. It will go to Court and he will lose. Only Congress can authorize spending. Not the President. Since we haven't had a budget in 4 years he can not even use that to claim he has authority.

If Congress did not raise the debt limit, and emergency procedures to raise cash does not provide sufficient funds to meet government obligations, I have no doubt the president would act unilaterally. The one thing the US government can not do is fail to make good on it's contracts and debt obligations that are due. If that would happen the market value of treasury bills would fall like a rock as would the value of thousands of pensions funds, financial institutions, stocks, and bonds. Remember, there is only one thing that keeps the boat afloat. People have faith in the US government to meet it's obligations. If that faith is destroyed, then everything comes down like a house of cards.

Congress would have to be totally insane to allow this to happen.

And that would be members of the TPM, who are willing to destroy the Nation to blindly adhere to their reckless fiscal agenda.

You of course, mean the reckless and irresponsible raising of the debt ceiling in the past which has brought this nation to the very brink of financial ruin.

The continuation of raising the debt ceiling is a bigger threat to this nation and its financial well being than any argument made for raising it.

Holding the line is what is termed as 'Fiscal Sanity'.