It is time to invoke the 14th Amendment

[Chris]

As fears intensify that Congress will not pass a debt limit increase in time to avoid default, some Democrats are pulling out their pocket Constitutions to find a back-up plan.

Assistant Minority Leader Rep. James Clyburn, R-S.C., said today that if a long-term deal is not struck by Aug. 2, President Obama should sign an executive order raising the debt ceiling without Congressional approval. He said this action would be justified because of a section in the 14th Amendment that states that “the validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned.”

"I am convinced that whatever discussions about the legality of that can continue," Clyburn said. "But I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people, and will bring needed stability to our financial markets."

The argument is that a default would put the “validity of the public debt” in jeopardy, thus violating the 14th Amendment. And since the president took a vow to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” it would then be his responsibility to ensure that the country does not default.

Last-Ditch 14th Amendment Plan Gains Momentum As Debt Clock Ticks - The Note

 

[Full-Auto]

As fears intensify that Congress will not pass a debt limit increase in time to avoid default, some Democrats are pulling out their pocket Constitutions to find a back-up plan.

Assistant Minority Leader Rep. James Clyburn, R-S.C., said today that if a long-term deal is not struck by Aug. 2, President Obama should sign an executive order raising the debt ceiling without Congressional approval. He said this action would be justified because of a section in the 14th Amendment that states that “the validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned.”

"I am convinced that whatever discussions about the legality of that can continue," Clyburn said. "But I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people, and will bring needed stability to our financial markets."

The argument is that a default would put the “validity of the public debt” in jeopardy, thus violating the 14th Amendment. And since the president took a vow to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” it would then be his responsibility to ensure that the country does not default.

Last-Ditch 14th Amendment Plan Gains Momentum As Debt Clock Ticks - The Note

Point out in the amendment where is says it can not be paid late?

 

[Chris]

I think the American people would support it.

 

[martybegan]

A more proper interpretation is that the President has to pay off interest on the debt first, before paying any other federal bills.

Basically what Obama supporters are saying is that the government is allowed to borrow more money, to pay of interest on money already borrowed, regardless of what congress says.

Again, the first statement is more valid than the second.

 

[Full-Auto]

I think the American people would support it.

Based on what, your imagination? Current polling shows very clearly the majority do not want a debt ceiling increase. They also support a balanced approach. Revenue and cuts.

 

[Avatar4321]

You can invoke it all you want. It doesnt grant the President the authority to borrow more money.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's not like big 0 gives to shits about the Constitution or what congress has to say.

He's already a war mongering tyrant. So what's one more tyrannicle act?

 

[Lovebears65]

I dont support it and none of my friends do either . To me this is what a dictator does not the president of the USA

 

[Chris]

I dont support it and none of my friends do either . To me this is what a dictator does not the president of the USA

No, the president does what's right for the people.

And this is definitely right.

And dictators aren't elected.

Another civics lesson.

 

[Chris]

It's not like big 0 gives to shits about the Constitution or what congress has to say.

He's already a war mongering tyrant. So what's one more tyrannicle act?

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

But you only want to enforce the parts that you like.

 

[Liability]

If the President "invokes" the 14th Amendment, such a dishonest and naked power grab ought to be "rewarded"

with an immediate impeachment.

 

[Liability]

It's not like big 0 gives to shits about the Constitution or what congress has to say.

He's already a war mongering tyrant. So what's one more tyrannicle act?

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

But you only want to enforce the parts that you like.

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the Constitution.

Your interpretation of what it permits is not.

 

[Chris]

If the President "invokes" the 14th Amendment, such a dishonest and naked power grab ought to be "rewarded"

with an immediate impeachment.

 

[Chris]

It's not like big 0 gives to shits about the Constitution or what congress has to say.

He's already a war mongering tyrant. So what's one more tyrannicle act?

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

But you only want to enforce the parts that you like.

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the Constitution.

Your interpretation of what it permits is not.

That's for the courts to decide.

That's how our system works.

 

[The Rabbi]

If Obama invokes the 14th Amendment his next move ought to be invoking the 5th Amendment.

 

[Liability]

If the President "invokes" the 14th Amendment, such a dishonest and naked power grab ought to be "rewarded"

with an immediate impeachment.

The braying jackass responds ^ to the best of his very limited ability.

But it's no laughing matter.

The President had best think that kind of thing over very carefully before fucking with the Constitution.

Your advice, Chrissy, is idiotic and quite baseless.

One can hope that even this imbecile President is smarter than that.

 

[Chris]

If the President "invokes" the 14th Amendment, such a dishonest and naked power grab ought to be "rewarded"

with an immediate impeachment.

The braying jackass responds ^ to the best of his very limited ability.

But it's no laughing matter.

The President had best think that kind of thing over very carefully before fucking with the Constitution.

Your advice, Chrissy, is idiotic and quite baseless.

One can hope that even this imbecile President is smarter than that.

Hardly baseless or idiotic.

And as I said, it's for the courts to decide.

 

[Liability]

The braying jackass responds ^ to the best of his very limited ability.

But it's no laughing matter.

The President had best think that kind of thing over very carefully before fucking with the Constitution.

Your advice, Chrissy, is idiotic and quite baseless.

One can hope that even this imbecile President is smarter than that.

Hardly baseless or idiotic.

And as I said, it's for the courts to decide.

And, as ever, you are entirely wrong.

It is utterly baseless. It is completely idiotic. And no, it may not be for the Courts to decide. It could be for the House of Representin' to decide.

If the stupid power-grabbing liberal scumbag President tries that shit, it's time to impeach his dishonest ass.

 

[Chris]

Sen. Tom Harkin told reporters on a conference call Thursday afternoon that he believes legal precedent and non-action by Congress could culminate to provide an avenue by which President Barack Obama could act alone to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by executive order.

“I believe that the 14th Amendment and the finding in Perry v. US gives him the authority to do that,” Harkin said, noting that such an outcome would depend on whether or not Congress took action.

“I think he would need to wait until the last minute — like maybe next Monday or Tuesday — but he could [at that point] say, ‘Well, Congress has not acted and since we cannot go into default, I’m issuing an executive order to raise the debt.’ I think most members of Congress would probably applaud that … most members of Congress don’t like voting on raising the debt ceiling anyway, so they’d probably like that they wouldn’t have to vote on it.”

Afterward, Harkin said, Congress could move forward with discussions on the national debt and deficit. He also realizes that such an outcome would not be universally popular.

“I think the tea party people would probably go kinda nuts, but that’s their stock in trade anyway,” he said.

The 14th Amendment was one of the nation’s Reconstruction Amendments, and contains the due process and equal protection clauses. Section 4 of the amendment, however, deals with payment of national debt — specifically the payment of Union debts following the Civil War and not Confederate ones, although the document contains language which does not limit its boundaries to only that circumstance. It states “the validity of the U.S. public debt shall not be questioned.”

And, in deciding the 1935 case Perry v. United States, Chief Justice Charles Evans wrote that the “language indicates a broader connotation” than simply the debt conflict that followed the Civil War. Overall the high court ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

While the idea of using a SCOTUS decision from 1935 and a Constitutional Amendment penned in 1868 may seem a bit radical, Harkin is hardly the only person to suggest it as a remedy to the ongoing national stalemate over the debt-ceiling. Roughly 10 days ago, President Bill Clinton said he would use the option “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”

“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said. “[Y]ou can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.’”

Harkin: Obama could raise debt ceiling by executive order | Iowa Independent

 

[Liability]

Sen. Tom Harkin told reporters on a conference call Thursday afternoon that he believes legal precedent and non-action by Congress could culminate to provide an avenue by which President Barack Obama could act alone to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by executive order.

“I believe that the 14th Amendment and the finding in Perry v. US gives him the authority to do that,” Harkin said, noting that such an outcome would depend on whether or not Congress took action.

“I think he would need to wait until the last minute — like maybe next Monday or Tuesday — but he could [at that point] say, ‘Well, Congress has not acted and since we cannot go into default, I’m issuing an executive order to raise the debt.’ I think most members of Congress would probably applaud that … most members of Congress don’t like voting on raising the debt ceiling anyway, so they’d probably like that they wouldn’t have to vote on it.”

Afterward, Harkin said, Congress could move forward with discussions on the national debt and deficit. He also realizes that such an outcome would not be universally popular.

“I think the tea party people would probably go kinda nuts, but that’s their stock in trade anyway,” he said.

The 14th Amendment was one of the nation’s Reconstruction Amendments, and contains the due process and equal protection clauses. Section 4 of the amendment, however, deals with payment of national debt — specifically the payment of Union debts following the Civil War and not Confederate ones, although the document contains language which does not limit its boundaries to only that circumstance. It states “the validity of the U.S. public debt shall not be questioned.”

And, in deciding the 1935 case Perry v. United States, Chief Justice Charles Evans wrote that the “language indicates a broader connotation” than simply the debt conflict that followed the Civil War. Overall the high court ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

While the idea of using a SCOTUS decision from 1935 and a Constitutional Amendment penned in 1868 may seem a bit radical, Harkin is hardly the only person to suggest it as a remedy to the ongoing national stalemate over the debt-ceiling. Roughly 10 days ago, President Bill Clinton said he would use the option “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”

“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said. “[Y]ou can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.’”

Harkin: Obama could raise debt ceiling by executive order | Iowa Independent

Harkin is a schmuck. And he's wrong.

So much for your appeal to very doubtful "authority."