FED UP: Just Do The 14th Amendment Thing Already, Democrats Beg Obama

It's getting late on Capitol Hill this Saturday evening. And it's only going to get later -- the Senate vote on Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan to raise the debt limit is coming after midnight, meaning members of Congress are cooling their heels and getting frustrated.

That might be the reason more and more Democrats are calling on President Obama to handle this debt limit fiasco unilaterally by ignoring the debt limit via a reading of the 14th Amendment popular with progressives.

Another reason may be that the scheme is actually in the mix as negotiations over how to raise the debt limit grind on as the deadline gets closer and closer.

That would be a big change from the way things have been going so far. The White House, Treasury Dept., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been fairly adamant in their rejection of the 14th Amendment option.

But fed-up Democrats on the Hill have been pushing it for days anyway and as they bounce around the halls of of the Capitol Saturday waiting for something -- anything -- to happen, they're repeating their plaintive cry for Constitutional relief."I'm talking about that there's precedents for presidents to do things where the Constitution doesn't give the president explicit authority but it doesn't prohibit the president from doing it, and I believe there's a basis in the 14th amendment as decided in Perry v. United States," Sen Tom Harkin (D-IA) said on the Senate floor. "I think the president - barring action from the Congress - not only has the authority to do so, he has the responsibility to not let this country default."

Sen. Barbara Boxer (R-CA), who already called on Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment days ago, repeated the suggestion on the floor tonight as time marched on and the sun outside grew increasingly faint.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/fed-up-just-do-the-14th-amendment-thing-already-democrats-beg-obama.php?ref=fpb

If I were Obama I would swear that WAS NOT AN OPTION right up to 11:55pm Monday night, then I would pull it out of my sleeve.

He could even wait for Tuesday!

If you were, it stands to reason that you would likely face impeachment for attempting to usurp Congressional jurisdiction from the Congress.

which it is.

Setting the spending limit himself? That would be an usurpation. But declaring that the U.S. will pay back its debts, no matter what, usurps no power from Congress.

The usurpation would occur as a result of the Executive's illegal effort "borrow money on the credit of the United States."

I don't support the approach though I know many on DU do. I guess I have become as stubborn as the teabaggers. Why should Obama save them from themselves. Yes it will be ugly but it's not clear that Obama's unilateral action will have the desired effect especially on market forces who might see the action as risky given the certain impeachment actions that would follow.

"Why should Obama save them from themselves."


Gees, haven't you heard the financial experts? President Obama would be saving EVERYONE IN THE USA and other countries beside. It would be a world wide catastrophe.

saving the teabaggers.... lolololol


SAVING THE WORLD.

and yes that includes financial experts. The untested move very well could be seen as illegitimate and the markets would still tank.

power, although Senate would probly not vote to remove).

But no investor legally required to own AAA securities can legally buy a U.S. debt instrument rated below AAA. Even if Obama's use of the 14th maintained AAA rating, no way would investors be willing to bid to par for those securities, since the phrase 'full faith and credit' of the U.S.' would not be up for grabs.

Result: lower bond prices, higher interest rates and economic death spiral.

Abandoning the Constitution will not save the US or the world from anything.:think: don't be :crazy:

It would upset the Republicans.

because the truth is funny.

of the banks. The Fed can and will do the same to cover any bank losses due to Treasury checks that would otherwise bounce.

There will be no default of the Federal Government. That's what the Federal Reserve was created for. See, discussion thread at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1604107#1604160

opens up an entirely different can of worms.

For it would force the question regarding the Constitutionality of a private banking system that creates money out of thin air, to be put on the table.

After all, printing money is a power that is delegated to the Congress in Section 8.

created that way. Right now, that's a good thing, I think.

Besides, this isn't printing money. It's an interbank loan, which is something that central banks do every day. Nobody's going to eliminate the Federal Reserve.

Moreover, the Treasury cannot borrow from the Fed or any other entity without the authorization of Congress.

Nobody's going to eliminate the Federal Reserve.

That's probably true, and probably a good thing. However, I think the People deserve to have a closer look at their accounting procedures as well as the entities to which it has provided guarantees.

Don't forget, the Fed still owns more than 70% of those toxic Mortgage-Backed Securities it acquired in an effort to stabilize the housing market. They were toxic then and they are still toxic now. Knowing that Enron's former lobbyist now works the FR, forces the subject of off-balance-sheet accounting onto the table.

Enron used off–balance-sheet entities to artificially inflate profits and make themselves look more financially secure than they actually were. Congress uses them (SS trust fund) to mask the severity of the deficit and to buy votes. Could it be that the FR is sitting on a pile of worthless assets that are somehow being concealed?

If so, they are in no position to address this financial crisis. Unless, of course, they are simply going to inflate their way out of it. For money cannot function as money, unless it is backed by actual, *unconsumed* assets.

All it has to do is to write off couple of trillion of it by destroying the USG bonds it holds to get the debt back safely under the ceiling.
No printing of new money, no illegal bond auctions - just an accounting trick with no action required from either the President or
the Congress. Problem solved.

seems to me like the repugs are trying to steer the President in that directions so that they could have a year of impeachment headlines before the election. Of course I could be wrong but I don’t think so.

grrr.....

so that it is obvious that it is a measure of last resort because Congress can't get the job done.

Please see the discussion above.

but chooses not to say so publicly, according to this source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/30/congressman-pelosi-clearly-backs-14th-amendment-in-debt-standoff_n_914137.html

WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may not be pushing the issue publicly, but in private she "clearly" supports President Barack Obama using the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling as a last resort, according to one Democratic member of Congress.

"Nancy clearly wants it," said the lawmaker, who requested anonymity. "Publicly? No. Privately? She thinks the president should do it. Period."

Several top Democrats have endorsed the idea in recent days as an eleventh hour solution: House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) backed the option on Wednesday, and House Democratic Caucus chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) and Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) emerged from a Monday Caucus meeting announcing their support for the idea as well.

But Pelosi, the highest-ranking House Democrat, has been mum. One possible reason is that she has to preserve the image that Congress will reach a deal before the situation even gets to that point.

The American system of checks and balances was designed to prohibit the very thing supporters of the so-called 14th Amendment option are advocating. In essence, these mis-guided individuals are calling for the abandonment of a legal system that is based on objectively valid principles, and replacing it with the notion that we are "a nation of men, not laws."

The process they are describing, is not a legal process at all; rather, it is the establishment of a monarchy.

The legal process of declaring war has been disregarded and we see what that has given us: Thousands of lives wasted, trillions of $$$ borrowed and squandered.

It is not clear to me why so many people are willing to abandon the American system of checks and balances that has for the most part, worked well over the course of our history. Abandoning the Constitution is what created our $$$ problems--the solution will not be found in it's further abandonment.

presumably would involve hereditary transfer of power), but a definite usurpation of powers granted by the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8.

Supporters of the 14th Amendment solution place expedience over due process of the law (ironic, since due process of the law elaborated in Section 1 is a far more important principle of said 14th Amendment :)

:)

But you have accurately characterized the 14th Amendment solution as being based on expedience, as opposed to being based on the law.

Expedient solutions are most often arbitrary, irrational, blindly emotional. Lady justice is supposed to be blind, she is not supposed to be arbitrary, irrational, or emotional.

is imho a willful misreading of the plain meaning and intent of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which concerns the validity of debt already extant, not the issuance of new debt (which is what raising the debt ceiling authorizes). But supporters of the 14th Amendment solution don't even care about what words mean or are supposed to mean - that's where expedience suborns both language and logic.

of facts.

Supporters of the 14th Amendment solution fail to recognize that it does not repeal or modify Article 1 and Article 2. If they thoroughly studied the Constitution, they would see that the official text of the Constitution notes the places in which amendments to the original text supersede it. For example, the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery and the framers of that amendment went back to the sections that were amended and inserted parenthetical notices of the change.

As you pointed out earlier, Article 1, Section 8, delegates the power to borrow to Congress. Subsequently, Article 2 delegates Executive branch powers, and says nothing about borrowing authority.

In addition, the Constitution, separates spending (Section 7) and borrowing (Section 8), which requires separate legislation for each.

Evidently, 14th supporters assume that Congress passes separate legislation for the purpose of practicing their legislative skills. However, the application of logic and reason leads one to conclude that they did it that way because that is what the law (Constitution) requires.

do not ordinarily satisfy the definition of 'debt' (except perhaps in cases where a promissory note was signed by one party).

and that would be unconstitutional.

likelihood that interest on extant debt could not be paid, nor extant debt redeemed and rolled over into new debt, i.e., default. However, I doubt that default is unconstitutional. Default is default and, while not desirable and indeed catastrophic, is not a matter the constitution addresses directly. But I can see how one can argue from an expansive reading of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment that defaulting on the debt is unconstitutional - I don't happen to agree with that argument, nor do attorneys in the White House.

The public debt authorized by law, isn't simply debt instruments issued by the treasury. Salaries, Social Security benefits, all the stuff the federal government buys... all "public debt authorized by law".

No debt ceiling bill = default on the public debt.

The argument that there's enough revenue to pay existing debt despite a moratorium on new debt fails on that basis.

Man up Obama.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

"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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States . . . ."

The rest is simply housekeeping.

said and done merely a target or road map) with the act of appropriating funds for programs (typically accomplished through an Appropriations Act, separate and distinct from a budget).

Furthermore, you stretch ingenuity beyond its natural limits by arguing that Congress 'borrowed' money by the mere adoption of a budget. Leaving aside the perhaps pedantic point that it is the Treasury Department that, upon Congress' authorization, 'borrows' the funds by issuing bonds, you assertion would be as if I said that my budget for 2011 included the purchase of a Lamborghini Maserati and, because I had budgeted for it, I had therefore taken on the financial obligation to pay for same. That, my friend, is not 'simply housekeeping,' a fact that Lamborghini may regret but which I most assuredly do not :)