Constitution Compels Obama To Bypass Congress And Raise Debt Ceiling Unilaterally

[OKTexas]

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.

Maobama is impeachment proof so long as Reid is majority leader in the Senate. There is nothing in the 14th that allows the president to raise the debt ceiling, it basically instructs him to pay the debts and pensions before anything else. Ya might want to take a minute and read it.

 

[AmyNation]

The 14th was added to prevent congress from attempting to renig on our national debt. I think the argument that congress has a constitutional requirement to honor our obligations an interesting one.

 

[The Rabbi]

The 14th was added to prevent congress from attempting to renig on our national debt. I think the argument that congress has a constitutional requirement to honor our obligations an interesting one.

If anyone is going to "renig" it will be Obama.

 

[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.

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.

 

[OKTexas]

The 14th was added to prevent congress from attempting to renig on our national debt. I think the argument that congress has a constitutional requirement to honor our obligations an interesting one.

At this point that authorized debt is 16.4 trillion dollars. They are required to service that debt. It would be unconstitutional to default.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The 14th was added to prevent congress from attempting to renig on our national debt. I think the argument that congress has a constitutional requirement to honor our obligations an interesting one.

At this point that authorized debt is 16.4 trillion dollars. They are required to service that debt. It would be unconstitutional to default.

As I already pointed out, even if the 14th applied, which it doesn't... it does not apply until or unless Congress authorizes FURTHER spending. The debt ceiling comes up in the talks on the non existent Budget and the Continuing resolution to pay for the Government.

Only Congress can authorize more spending and only Congress can authorize borrowing. The supposed new meaning to the 14th only comes in play if Congress authorizes new spending that goes over the current debt limit.

All the House has to do is refuse to approve any new spending and then the supposed new meaning of the 14th is invalid.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I would rather see Obama pull the $1 trillion platinum coin move, than see this 14th amendment nonsense. But let's be serious, neither one is going to happen.

 

[OKTexas]

The 14th was added to prevent congress from attempting to renig on our national debt. I think the argument that congress has a constitutional requirement to honor our obligations an interesting one.

At this point that authorized debt is 16.4 trillion dollars. They are required to service that debt. It would be unconstitutional to default.

As I already pointed out, even if the 14th applied, which it doesn't... it does not apply until or unless Congress authorizes FURTHER spending. The debt ceiling comes up in the talks on the non existent Budget and the Continuing resolution to pay for the Government.

Only Congress can authorize more spending and only Congress can authorize borrowing. The supposed new meaning to the 14th only comes in play if Congress authorizes new spending that goes over the current debt limit.

All the House has to do is refuse to approve any new spending and then the supposed new meaning of the 14th is invalid.

There is no new meaning of the 14th Amendment, it concerns authorized debt, meaning bonds that congress authorizes the treasury to issue. It has nothing to do with appropriations.

 

[Star]

.
To funny, President Obama is in agreement with the righties on this M/B, i.e. he doesn't have the authority to raise the so-called debt limit but-----but does that also mean the righties on this M/B are also absolving President Obama of all responsibility if/when the US loses it's credit rating if/when they default on the debt and/or people begin to be affected by a government services shut down, --- WTG righties, 'bout time y'all started taking responsibility for screwing over the country.


Question: If the government shuts down, will the carbon subsidies be lost or will the carbon corps get paid retroactively by congressional decree?

History repeating itself?​

.

 

[eflatminor]

-----but does that also mean the righties on this M/B are also absolving President Obama of all responsibility if/when the US loses it's credit rating

Our less-than-perfect credit rating is because we spent too much, not because we put a stop to too much spending.

if/when they default on the debt

You understand we have PLENTY of revenue to cover our debt obligations, right? Nobody is going to default.

and/or people begin to be affected by a government services shut down,

Tough. Some we'll have to trim, others will have to go. Our society thrived compared to the rest of the world before all the entitlements. All we're talking about is reform...to live within our means. It's immoral to burden future generations with the debt of our meddling, here and abroad.

'bout time y'all started taking responsibility for screwing over the country.

Nearly 50 years since we implemented LBJ's so called 'great society', the goal of which was to end poverty. Despite all the entitlement growth and trillions of dollars spent, poverty is up. Any chance it's the nanny state central planner types from both parties that screwed things up? Just a thought.

 

[boedicca]

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

 

[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.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.

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.

 

[Desperado]

Constitution Compels Obama To Bypass Congress And Raise Debt Ceiling Unilaterally

Any reason that Obama would want to start following the Constitution at this point in time when he has been ignoring it since his last inauguration?

 

[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.

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.

Unlike you I don't believe the government can solve every problem, and I don't believe in limiting the people right to choose a representive because the person they might pick doesn't fit your moral compass.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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

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.

Unlike you I don't believe the government can solve every problem, and I don't believe in limiting the people right to choose a representive because the person they might pick doesn't fit your moral compass.

Yea right.. Show me where I support government intervention in to ANYTHING liberal.. YOU CAN'T , because I DON'T. I am pro life but I would never force my view to take away the rights of anyone else. But here you are in this thread advocating that King Obama has the right to use an EO to grab the purse strings of the Congress. You're rather mixed up, aren't you?

 

[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.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.