The 14th A is not an option, per Conyers and Kucinich.

Interesting bit of reading I did tonight. Seems that both Reps. Conyers and Kucinich have teamed up with a number of Republicans to argue they they, as members of Congress, and as taxpayers, have standing to challenge the Executive Orders of the President in court, although precedent and common sense are against them.

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Libya_Complaint_Master.pdf

Read what DK, et al, have to say about standing in paragraphs 164 and those following. They seem to assert that any member of Congress can directly challenge an Article 1 violation in court.

So, the teabagger Congressmen? According to DK's assertions, they absolutely have standing to challenge the 14th Amendment option. Nice work, Dennis.

At a certain point, what has to be done has to be done for the welfare of the country.

...show some spine, Obama.

in regards to Obama invoking the 14th amendment related to lifting the debt ceiling.

-----

Below an excerpt regarding 'legal standing' written by constitutional lawyer, Robert A. Levy, related the issue of Obama, the 14th amendment, and the debt ceiling:

SNIP

As a practical matter, I suspect no one has legal standing to challenge an executive decision to borrow in excess of the ceiling. Standing to sue entails a showing of imminent, concrete and particularized injury to the plaintiff — distinct from injury to the broader public. Perhaps Congress as a whole could claim such injury, but that would require a joint resolution, which would never pass the Democratic-controlled Senate. Moreover, even if someone had standing, the Supreme Court would likely treat the debt ceiling dispute as non-justiciable — that is, as a political question lacking legal criteria by which a court can resolve the impasse.

SNIP

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13297

Look, Levy is a smart dude. His theories underpin McConnell v. FEC.

But that's not the point. The point I am making is that you currently have a bipartisan lawsuit that argues that the Congress does have standing to litigate an article 1 violation--which is the very same 'injury' Levy thinks he needs.

Personally, I think Campbell v, Clinton was pretty clear, but Turley's argument is worth considering.

As is noting that here, you have a very convenient, opportunistic lawsuit, brought by DK.

Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School.

----

SNIP

The final possibility is that members of Congress will sue the president for ignoring the debt ceiling. Under existing Supreme Court precedents, groups of individual congressmen would not probably have standing to sue. It is possible that a contrived suit could be created by bond holders, but courts will probably see through it. Moreover, even if the bond holders have standing, the courts will likely treat the constitutional issues as nonjusticiable under the "political question" doctrine, as they do in the case of war powers.

SNIP

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

As I've said, the precedents are pretty clear. Campbell v. Clinton, very clear. And yet you still have an extant suit.

My point, perhaps obscured, is that I find it interesting that DK (a useless tool, imho) has filed a frivolous suit, based on 'principle' that anticipates all the bagger arguments on standing--and even better, claims to be an exception to precedent.

that's what Jack Balkin said almost word for word, as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=726122&mesg_id=726227

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/

My point is that DK is a pretty useless tool, and I find it interesting that he's already anticipated the bagger's problems of standing, with a bullshit lawsuit of his own, currently extant.

Unintended consequences happen when one claims 'principle.'

and hate him for opposing undeclared wars of choice. That seems to be your point. Lovely.

trying to stop the war machine--despised?

You need to work on your priorities.

by not allowing funding. These contradictions may allow the president to invoke the 14 th amendment and raise the debt ceiling cleanly. But does he really want a clean bill?

I love how so many Liberals are angry at Obama for not following this and for so many of those same Liberals they adore Kucinich and he turns against this too. Wait until Bernie Sanders turns against this---it will be entertaining to say the least.

White House press secretary Jay Carney finally discarded that idea as not an option.

Geithner: Fourteenth Amendment Is Not an Option

14th Amendment Clause "Not an Option" for Debt Ceiling Hike, Says White House

To all the conservatives who love this administration, and this President, there's your man. Now you can shut up about the 14th Amendment too.

That is all.

You may return to your regularly scheduled slamming of anyone/anything Liberal now.

Kucinich's filing argues that Congresspeople have the standing to sue the President over Article 1 violations.

Neither gentlemen you quoted speak to that issue.

But note most of the posters on DU and across the board---saying Obama should show some "cajones" or show that he cares by pushing the 14th Amendment. Additionally, they said he's too weak to do this or that.


Then those of us who list the problems related to the 14th Amendment supporting the President's decision. We're the cheerleaders. Then all of the sudden Kucinich show's that he's not a fan. I'd wager to say that he went against many a liberal who were claiming Obama was too weak to do 14th Amendment.

I have to say I enjoyed how you found my post an attack on Kucinich. Hardly that, it was an attack on Liberal know-it-alls who like to attack Obama but claim they're holding his feet to the fire.

with him at the same time.

to the President? That's the one thing that would get bi-partisan action in a heartbeat.

Obama would not be appropriating any new funds to fund any new projects.
The Congress would still have to vote to appropriate new funds, that would not be affected.

upheld giving standing to individual Congressmen. I'd suspect that in the case of Obama floating bonds without authorization, Republicans would at least have a majority vote to sue as the entire House of Representatives. I haven't found any Supreme Court rulings yet, but I think I remember cases where Congress sued the executive before. Didn't Conyers sue when Bush refused to supply information and witness to Conyers' committee?

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=60+Notre+Dame+L.+Rev.+417&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=b05907c89be41afad6041e72cb5bb254

Campbell v. Clinton

don't think we're not keeping score, brothers Kucinich and Conyers! :sarcasm:

Meaning Obama said the 14th is not an option---this is backing that idea.

that members of Congess only have standing to sue if they have a particularized injury or if there is a presidential nullification of a vote. The courts cannot intervene is there is a legislative remedy to a problem.

http://congressionalresearch.com/RL30280/document.php?study=Congressional+Standing+to+Sue+An+Overview

Team Kucinich, and everyone else can piss off.

Funny how DUers always marvel at Republican message cohesion and wish Democrats would exhibit the same behavior, except when Dennis starts squeaking.

Then they all line up to kiss his ring; when St. Dennis speaks, all other Democrats are wrong.

It takes a boatload of rationalization to accuse the president of doing it but when Kucinich does it, no problemo. Go figure.

wants control of currency to be in Congress' hand, effectively Boehner's.

That's Ron Paul's position.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nutcase argumment!