To raise the debt ceiling the Democrats should use the Bush

Presidential Directive 51. It was written by a Republican lol! What could they say against it, they wrote it...The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), created and signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which claims power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." <1>
more



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive

Presidential Directive was targeting foreign terrorists rather than our own home grown baggerists.

The president already had that power.

Within a few years of taking office each president since Reagan has reviewed and revised the "continuance of government" EO, stipulating the goals, conditions, process, and termination conditions.

It makes things more gradual than just "martial law" and "fully functioning Republic." Still, the trigger is pretty extreme, and as long Congress was able to meet the president would not have that power.

negated by the economic and governmental crisis that this directive would address.

The 14th amendment allows him to do it, while this directive gives him the means to do it.

He could even write it to extend the limit until beyond the next election - thus taking it out of the pre-election debate, giving the congress plenty of time to work out a deal since they will no longer be holding their hostage.

Interesting.

He could even balance it himself by setting the taxes at whatever he wants--and, if necessary, put those criticising him in prison and suspend habeas corpus. If justice Roberts is one of them, I'm sure nobody would care.

What? You disagree? You're for the * tax cuts, for racist comments about a good president, and support Roberts? Traitor to the Constitution!

(The old "destroy the village to save it" line, revised: "destroy the republic to save it".)

The intent of that is clear. Now Bushco one might accuse of creating an incident, LIHOP or MIHOP or the like.

But failure of the House to pass a given bill would not be such an incident.

When it comes to godlike savings proposals, the 14th Amendment sounds better.

Unfortunately, nobody gave it its rabies shots or taught it to behave. Let the logorrhea begin.

People keep trying to pull ideas out of...well, you know where. They're not realistic and they're not going to happen.