Dems are discussing whether WH can ignore the debt ceiling

[Trajan]

interesting. its only a discussion mind you, they are exploring all avenues open to them as options. there is nothing wrong with that.

I am just wondering where/how Obama would find the justification after the congress has in the past raised the debt. limit what, 70 times? Surely he cannot be the first exec. to face such a dilemma?

If he, well, his lawyers find what they thought was a way to do so, how would that go down in the public's eyes without an accompanying bill addressing the deficit and all its drivers; DOD, Medicare, Medicaid etc....?

Is this a leak they provided on purpose so as to scare the herd of Reps. into making a deal on Democratic terms?


Finally; if he can, should he?


Schumer confirms White House considering ignoring debt limit
Conn Carroll | Senior Editorial Writer Follow Him @conncarroll | 07/01/11 2:42 PM


This morning we speculated that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was seriously considering just ignoring the statutory debt limit by claiming it was superseded by section Four of the 14th amendment. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., confirmed that that course of action has been considered by the White House. Talking Points Memo‘s Brian Beutler reports on a conference call with Schumer today:

I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question’s been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn’t go there just yet.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Schumer confirms White House considering ignoring debt limit | Conn Carroll | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

 

[percysunshine]

I plan on ignoring my mortgage company when I stop making payments on my house.

I kind of wonder how much time that will buy me....could be years...could be days...

 

[VaderNinurta]

The "Debt Ceiling" is completely arbitrary. "Raise" it, "Lower" it, or keep it the same, it will continue to be ignored as it is just an invented notion.

 

[percysunshine]

The "Debt Ceiling" is completely arbitrary. "Raise" it, "Lower" it, or keep it the same, it will continue to be ignored as it is just an invented notion.

It is not arbitrary. It is the US government credit card limit. It can be changed by Congress, but it is not arbitrary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do like Latin American countries have done in the past, just default. Did Brazil default in the 80"s, maybe?

They seem to be fine now. Fuck it. Pay off American debtholders and tell the rest of the world to come get it if they dare. What's the worst that can happen? We lose our credit rating? That might be the best thing that could happen.

 

[percysunshine]

Do like Latin American countries have done in the past, just default. Did Brazil default in the 80"s, maybe?

They seem to be fine now. Fuck it. Pay off American debtholders and tell the rest of the world to come get it if they dare. What's the worst that can happen? We lose our credit rating? That might be the best thing that could happen.

Banana Republic?

I guess that is one option.

 

[Trajan]

Do like Latin American countries have done in the past, just default. Did Brazil default in the 80"s, maybe?

They seem to be fine now. Fuck it. Pay off American debtholders and tell the rest of the world to come get it if they dare. What's the worst that can happen? We lose our credit rating? That might be the best thing that could happen.

Banana Republic?

I guess that is one option.

in one sense, because NY Carb. is nuts hes hit upon a nugget of reality, the real players in the global economy are all banana republics in more ways than one......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is the Constitution does not mandate a ‘debt ceiling,’ it’s a legislative contrivance which may not be constitutional at all:

But it’s not clear that Congress can constitutionally impose a debt ceiling on the President. The debt limit we have now is the legacy of a 1939 law designed to allow the Treasury flexibility to borrow up to a certain limit. But Geithner and a number of constitutional scholars have questioned whether Congress can prevent the president from paying obligations that the government has already incurred. That’s because a passage in the Fourteenth Amendment—designed to prevent Southern politicians from repudiating Civil War debts—stipulates that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.” What exactly that means is a complicated legal question, but as Jonathan Chait writes, the clause was intended to prevent politicians from using the threat of default for political leverage—which is exactly what Republicans are doing now.

Is the Debt Ceiling Legal? | Politeia | Big Think

Indeed, the president may ignore the law with impunity:

But barring a timely resolution to the standoff, could President Obama simply ignore the debt ceiling and keep making good on the country’s obligations? As the deadline grows nearer, the question has been popping up on law blogs and other forums, and according to a number of legal experts with whom I spoke, the answer, surprisingly, appears to be yes—and it is conservative justices who have played the biggest role in making it possible.

When it comes to Congress’s ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics, told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme, it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. “Who has some kind of particularized injury, in fact?” Zasloff asked, and he could not come up with a satisfying answer.

In the case of members of Congress suing the current administration over the debt ceiling, the issue of standing would likely fall the same way. Louis Fisher, an expert on the separation of powers who worked at the Congressional Research Service for over twenty five years, wrote in an email that “case law is quite clear that a member of Congress, even if joined by a dozen or two colleagues, cannot get standing in court to contest a constitutional issue.” A joint resolution from Congress could try to get an injunction from the D.C. District Court to stop the Treasury from issuing new debt, but that could be easily vetoed by Democrats in the Senate. Barring that, Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina who is a former special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, says that a legal representative of Congress, perhaps the House counsel, could bring forward a suit on behalf of Congress. But Gerhardt also adds that, if this happened, the Obama administration would likely argue that the case was analogous to the 1997 case against Raines,and therefore there should be no “institutional” standing.

The Debt Ceiling: Why Obama Should Just Ignore It | The New Republic

So the president could continue to pay the Nation’s debts and there’s not a thing the House can do about it.

Irony note:

Through their obstructionism and blind adherence to partisan dogma, with Libya and the Debt Ceiling issue, ‘conservatives’ have succeeded in strengthening the hand of the Imperial President, making the Federal government larger and stronger. Good job ‘small government’ republicans.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Only the ridiculous Tea Party/Voodoo crazy Pubs of today would hold the country hostage like this. Feg them, we don't need debt limits or the permission of tax cut cult morons to raise it. Sounds fair to me.

 

[Trajan]

The problem is the Constitution does not mandate a ‘debt ceiling,’ it’s a legislative contrivance which may not be constitutional at all:

But it’s not clear that Congress can constitutionally impose a debt ceiling on the President. The debt limit we have now is the legacy of a 1939 law designed to allow the Treasury flexibility to borrow up to a certain limit. But Geithner and a number of constitutional scholars have questioned whether Congress can prevent the president from paying obligations that the government has already incurred. That’s because a passage in the Fourteenth Amendment—designed to prevent Southern politicians from repudiating Civil War debts—stipulates that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.” What exactly that means is a complicated legal question, but as Jonathan Chait writes, the clause was intended to prevent politicians from using the threat of default for political leverage—which is exactly what Republicans are doing now.

Is the Debt Ceiling Legal? | Politeia | Big Think

Indeed, the president may ignore the law with impunity:

But barring a timely resolution to the standoff, could President Obama simply ignore the debt ceiling and keep making good on the country’s obligations? As the deadline grows nearer, the question has been popping up on law blogs and other forums, and according to a number of legal experts with whom I spoke, the answer, surprisingly, appears to be yes—and it is conservative justices who have played the biggest role in making it possible.

When it comes to Congress’s ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics, told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme, it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. “Who has some kind of particularized injury, in fact?” Zasloff asked, and he could not come up with a satisfying answer.

In the case of members of Congress suing the current administration over the debt ceiling, the issue of standing would likely fall the same way. Louis Fisher, an expert on the separation of powers who worked at the Congressional Research Service for over twenty five years, wrote in an email that “case law is quite clear that a member of Congress, even if joined by a dozen or two colleagues, cannot get standing in court to contest a constitutional issue.” A joint resolution from Congress could try to get an injunction from the D.C. District Court to stop the Treasury from issuing new debt, but that could be easily vetoed by Democrats in the Senate. Barring that, Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina who is a former special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, says that a legal representative of Congress, perhaps the House counsel, could bring forward a suit on behalf of Congress. But Gerhardt also adds that, if this happened, the Obama administration would likely argue that the case was analogous to the 1997 case against Raines,and therefore there should be no “institutional” standing.

The Debt Ceiling: Why Obama Should Just Ignore It | The New Republic

So the president could continue to pay the Nation’s debts and there’s not a thing the House can do about it.

actually there is; refuse to vote one more budget, appropriation bill out of the house, not a thing, not one dime. I'll bet they are on firmer ground doing that than this construct thats being ginned up.

Irony note:

Through their obstructionism and blind adherence to partisan dogma, with Libya and the Debt Ceiling issue, ‘conservatives’ have succeeded in strengthening the hand of the Imperial President, making the Federal government larger and stronger. Good job ‘small government’ republicans.

oh and notice anything peculiar as to your link?


I love how everything you put out is a done deal and in the declarative.

Hyperbole much?

 

[Sheldon]

14th Amendment, Sec 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.

First, despite what many of you think, I am not a great legal mind.

With that said, it seems like this phrase "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,..shall not be questioned." Could that mean defaulting on our debt is a violation of the Constitution?

Most of the rest of the Amendment seems like a response to the civil war, but isn't it basically saying the US Federal Government is required by law to ensure it is good for its money?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Only the ridiculous Tea Party/Voodoo crazy Pubs of today would hold the country hostage like this. Feg them, we don't need debt limits or the permission of tax cut cult morons to raise it. Sounds fair to me.

You must be pissed as hell at Obama for voting against raising the debt limit in 2006.

 

[percysunshine]

The problem is the Constitution does not mandate a ‘debt ceiling,’ it’s a legislative contrivance which may not be constitutional at all....

blah blah blah....

So the president could continue to pay the Nation’s debts and there’s not a thing the House can do about it.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I

First article in the Constitution:

Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.."


This is not rocket science.

 

[Sheldon]

The problem is the Constitution does not mandate a ‘debt ceiling,’ it’s a legislative contrivance which may not be constitutional at all....

blah blah blah....

So the president could continue to pay the Nation’s debts and there’s not a thing the House can do about it.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I

First article in the Constitution:

Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.."


This is not rocket science.

Would Congress be providing for the general welfare if they raised the debt ceiling?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The problem is the Constitution does not mandate a ‘debt ceiling,’ it’s a legislative contrivance which may not be constitutional at all....

blah blah blah....

So the president could continue to pay the Nation’s debts and there’s not a thing the House can do about it.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I

First article in the Constitution:

Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.."


This is not rocket science.

Would Congress be providing for the general welfare if they raised the debt ceiling?

No, because they're allowing us to go deeper into debt.

 

[Trajan]

14th Amendment, Sec 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.

First, despite what many of you think, I am not a great legal mind.

With that said, it seems like this phrase "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,..shall not be questioned." Could that mean defaulting on our debt is a violation of the Constitution?

Most of the rest of the Amendment seems like a response to the civil war, but isn't it basically saying the US Federal Government is required by law to ensure it is good for its money?

yes I can see that in that context.......... however, it appears to me that directing funds even if to pay debt. is a direction/management of ......money. The power of Appropriation lies with the House, not the senate not the exec..

He would first have to get his hands on it, IF he directs Geithner to just start paying out, where does it end and why has this not been broached before?

as a hypothetical; if Ford wanted to keep funding Vietnam back in 74, he could just have called up whomever was his sec. treas. and told him to fund the DOD? somehow, I just don't think so.

The treas is supposed to be I think, and I am sure we will hear this, a total non partisan ( in its collection and direction mechanics) responsive to........?

 

[percysunshine]

The problem is the Constitution does not mandate a ‘debt ceiling,’ it’s a legislative contrivance which may not be constitutional at all....

blah blah blah....

So the president could continue to pay the Nation’s debts and there’s not a thing the House can do about it.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I

First article in the Constitution:

Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.."


This is not rocket science.

Would Congress be providing for the general welfare if they raised the debt ceiling?

No.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Do like Latin American countries have done in the past, just default. Did Brazil default in the 80"s, maybe?

They seem to be fine now. Fuck it. Pay off American debtholders and tell the rest of the world to come get it if they dare. What's the worst that can happen? We lose our credit rating? That might be the best thing that could happen.

Rare as this is, I actually agree with you.

 

[Sheldon]

14th Amendment, Sec 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.

First, despite what many of you think, I am not a great legal mind.

With that said, it seems like this phrase "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,..shall not be questioned." Could that mean defaulting on our debt is a violation of the Constitution?

Most of the rest of the Amendment seems like a response to the civil war, but isn't it basically saying the US Federal Government is required by law to ensure it is good for its money?

yes I can see that in that context.......... however, it appears to me that directing funds even if to pay debt. is a direction/management of ......money. The power of Appropriation lies with the House, not the senate not the exec..

He would first have to get his hands on it, IF he directs Geithner to just start paying out, where does it end and why has this not been broached before?

as a hypothetical; if Ford wanted to keep funding Vietnam back in 74, he could just have called up whomever was his sec. treas. and told him to fund the DOD? somehow, I just don't think so.

The treas is supposed to be I think, and I am sure we will hear this, a total non partisan ( in its collection and direction mechanics) responsive to........?

Yeah the Sec of Treasure is SUPPOSED to be non-partisan, but since Paulson I've lost faith. I suspect they are mostly promoted as a puppet for the largest banks on Wall Street, but that's my own personal conspiracy theory.

My position on this all along has been, there WILL need to be spending cuts, hurtful in many cases, to social programs, along with increased revenue--either through capital gains or corporate or personal income or whatever--to get the government's finances on the right track. Iow, BOTH sides will have to make some concessions on their ideals. But none of the pols want to say this outright because it will hurt their approval numbers.

 

[Wiseacre]

We have enough funds coming in every month to pay the debt, so all this talk about defaulting is pure BS. The question really is about everything else, like social security, medicare/medicaid, paying the troops, federal prison guards and so on. Does the executive branch have the authority to ignore the debt ceiling and continue to borrow money to cover it's other obligations? If so, then why bother to have a Congress if the president can run up however much debt he wants to. Looks like we're close to that point already, isn't the EPA trying to implement a carbon tax without legislation?

I am reminded of how the Roman empire gradually changed from a republic to a dictatorship. The details are different but IMHO this president is usurping way too much power from the other branches of gov't. Not saying we'll end up with emperors, but I don't like the way things are going.