Posted on 07/08/2011 10:35:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
Will Obama trash the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling?
In your face, Tea Partiers!
Left-wing pundits like Keith Olbermann (Current TV), Lawrence ODonnell (MSNBC), and Katrina vanden Heuvel (Washington Post) practically drool at the recent claim that President Obama can unilaterally declare the debt-ceiling law unconstitutional, break off negotiations with Republicans, and order the Treasury secretary to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars without consulting Congress.
ODonnell revels in the Eureka! moment as he realizes Obama doesnt need to negotiate with stubborn Republicans, he can just dictate terms thanks to this nuclear option.” Vanden Heuvel thinks the president should threaten to deploy it ASAP, as a last resort, to save those who have become dependent upon government for their comfort and care.
What has these leftists all atwitter? Believe it or not, its a novel application of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would make President Obama commander in chief of the economy as well as the military. Olbermann loves the charm of stealing the Tea Partys act and turning their darling Constitution into their enemy.
Under the 14th-Amendment scenario, the president could tell the House speaker: “Take a hike, Boehner. Im not cutting a penny of federal spending.” Then hed whip out the national credit card and run up our balance beyond the current $14.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Speaker Boehner would sit hangdog helpless in his office, gaze despondently at his gloomy poll numbers, and plan a lot more fishing trips with his grandchildren in 2013 when Obama is re-inaugurated, and Boehner is retired.
The Genesis of Pleading the 14th
The idea for the allegedly constitutional ploy appeared first on April 28, in a faux speech in The Atlantic, penned for the president by one Garrett Epps, author of a 2007 book on the 14th Amendment. Epps teaches creative writing for law students at the University of Baltimore, and apparently practices what he teaches.
Coincidentally, the very next day Bruce Bartletts column in the Fiscal Times appeared, advancing the same concept. These two apparently unconnected men sowed the seeds of this blooming progressive meme. By May, no less a figure than Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pulled out a pocket Constitution during a Politico-sponsored panel discussion, and read aloud a single sentence from the amendment.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Geither actually paused before the final phrase, and said, This is the important thing shall not be questioned. Over the past two months, 14th Amendment has become a veritable battle cry among those seeking to maintain the tax-borrow-and-spend status quo.
Lets take a brief look at the foundations of this revolutionary notion, evaluate its validity, and examine its implications.
Garrett Epps, in his fantasy presidential address, accurately points out that the 14th Amendment was framed to prevent Southerners (read Democrats) from grabbing a congressional majority, then using it either to force the federal government to pay off Confederate debt and compensate former owners of emancipated slaves for their losses, or to refuse to pay off obligations that the U.S. government had racked up in pay and pensions for Union soldiers. The amendment would prevent a sour-grapes faction from wrecking the credit of the reunified nation. Thus far, all sensible readers agree.
The pretend speechwriter then imagines his boss saying:
The national debt must be paid in full, on time, regardless of any political division within our Congress. That is what the Framers intended: to set the debt obligations of our country beyond the reach of Congressional meddling. Those obligations will not be questioned as long as I am president of the United States.
However, should the president ever decide to speak such words in public, it would constitute another insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America — a 14th-Amendment coup detat. As of this writing, the White House has refused to comment on the concept, insisting theres no “Plan B” if talks with Republicans fail.
Constitutional Barriers
The major problem with pleading the 14th, so to speak, is the Constitution itself.
Article I Section 7.1 clearly states that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House.
Article I Sections 8.1 and 8.2 say only Congress has the power to pay the debts and to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment itself indicates that valid U.S. debt is only that debt that is authorized by law.”
Of course, to create a law, the Constitution requires concurrence of majorities in the House and the Senate. Thanks to veto-override power (Article I Section 7.2), a law doesnt even require the presidents approval. The 14th Amendment did not overturn those sections of Article I. The final phrase in the first sentence of Section 4 (shall not be questioned) certainly didnt negate an earlier phrase in the same sentence (authorized by law). In a nutshell, the power of the purse, both to expend and replenish, whether by taxation or borrowing, belongs to Congress, not to the president.
A Reagan Supply-Sider Flips
This makes Bruce Bartletts advocacy of the scheme even more puzzling at first. You see, Bartlett was a domestic policy analyst in the Reagan White House, who actually helped write the Kemp-Roth bill of 1981 which put supply-side economics to the test by slashing the top marginal tax rates, among other things. The free markets passed the test with flying colors. So, in some ways, we have Bartlett to thank for the ensuing two decades of unprecedented American prosperity.
Somewhere on lifes journey, however, Mr. Bartlett careened off of the Laffer Curve. In 2009, he wrote a book subtitled “The Failure of Reaganomics and the New Way Forward.” It garnered raves from Robert Reich, E.J. Dionne Jr., Andrew Sullivan, and other doyennes of the left. Bartlett has joined the church of latter-day Kenseyians. He has come to believe that his formerly beloved supply-side economics was a mere tactic, not a set of timeless principles. In other words, it worked in the 1980s, but we need something different now to meet the challenge of new market realities. In a word, we need Obamanomics, in all of its tax-funded stimulative glory.
Now, Bartlett says a broad reading of the 14th Amendment is justified, that practically every expense in the federal budget constitutes an indebtedness which shall not be questioned,” and that the presidents obligation to protect the credit of the United States is no less a duty than his obligation to guard the lives and property of all Americans. Bartlett tells MSNBC that if the government hits the debt ceiling during the congressional August recess, it would justify the same kind of response that [Obama] exercises as commander in chief.
Anti-Constitutional Stratagem
You dont have to be a fan of the so-called “debt ceiling” to resist any attempt by the executive to usurp legislative power. In fact, you reasonably might pine for the pre-ceiling days when Congress had to authorize each new issuance of debt. At least that might force lawmakers to publicly grapple with the consequences of bloated government on a more regular basis.
But if the president should adopt this unconstitutional (really anti-Constitutional) 14th Amendment stratagem, it would up-end the Framers’ system of checks and balances to an even greater degree than has misapplication of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause during the past seven decades. It would open the door to unlimited executive authority, the very threat against which the Framers sought to guard us. It would, in the language of the 14th, constitute an executive-led insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America. And as the amendment clearly states, we, the people, are not compelled to pay for those.
(Watch a discussion of this issue on PJTV’s Trifecta)
BO, the first King of the U.S.A. If this nation of sheep lets him take over the economy as he did GM, it is finished.
Isn't it well past time to introduce these cheerleaders-for-tyranny to Claire Wolfe?
If 0 did this you would see 1k drop in the DOW and
10$/gal gas, 5k/oz gold
“The Divine One” and his enablers are very dangerous. It looks more likely each and every passing day that this creature will not voluntarily leave office.
When will both Democrats and Republicans realize that King Obama is a communists BLACK Muslim dictator. Wake up! How can Americans be so stupid. His expulsion from the office cannot wait for 2012.
Even if the whole concept of a debt ceiling was unconstitutional, then the law would revert to the way it was before the debt ceiling was used in the early 20th century: every single bond issue would have to be approved by Congress and the president. The debt ceiling was a way to avoid worrying about individual bond issues and just let the treasury run a tab.
Any anyone from MSNBC anchors to the president who talks about this but ignores the clearly stated phrase "authorized by law" is just showing their desires to drop the Constitution into the shredder.
And Republicans? We already know that. It’s the liberals that don’t and don’t care
let him try
There would be an explosion akin to that caused by introducing matter to antimatter.
If Barky likes the idea of impeachment, he should step right ahead and do it.
“The nation of sheep” have done all they can do. They elected people who promised to cap Obama. If the opposition party fails to knock him on his you know what - by any and all legal means necessary and fail to make him absolutely miserable and his administration absolutely paralyzed, that is not the people’s fault. There is also supposed to be a third branch of government that is supposed to protect the republic from a fascist dictator and they are sitting on their wide ones doing nothing to protect America’s constitutional rule.
That is business as usual in the anti-American international non-states of the globe. All the people can do is vote. And they did.
There are valid legal reasons this type action would not work but there is also one practical reason. To raise funds, the Treasury has to find buyers for the bonds issued. Who would risk billions of dollars buying bonds with a legal cloud hanging over them. No buyers, no sale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.