Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 14th Amendment Coup d’Etat
Pajamas Media ^ | July 7, 2011 | Scott Ott

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 O’Donnell (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.

O’Donnell revels in the Eureka! moment as he realizes Obama doesn’t 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, it’s 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 Party’s 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. I’m not cutting a penny of federal spending.” Then he’d 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 Bartlett’s 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.

Let’s 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 d’etat. As of this writing, the White House has refused to comment on the concept, insisting there’s 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 doesn’t even require the president’s 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 didn’t 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 Bartlett’s 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 life’s 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 president’s 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 don’t 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)


TOPICS: Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: 14th; amendment; congress; constitution; spending

1 posted on 07/08/2011 10:35:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


2 posted on 07/08/2011 10:38:31 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Left-wing pundits like Keith Olbermann (Current TV), Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC), and Katrina vanden Heuvel (Washington Post)

Isn't it well past time to introduce these cheerleaders-for-tyranny to Claire Wolfe?

3 posted on 07/08/2011 10:38:53 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If he does King Obama better find a good place in Africa to hide.
4 posted on 07/08/2011 10:41:28 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If 0 did this you would see 1k drop in the DOW and
10$/gal gas, 5k/oz gold


5 posted on 07/08/2011 10:44:01 AM PDT by updatedscreenname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“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.


6 posted on 07/08/2011 10:45:12 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


7 posted on 07/08/2011 10:47:53 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Left-wing pundits like Keith Olbermann (Current TV), Lawrence O’Donnell (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.

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.

8 posted on 07/08/2011 10:49:26 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Tea Party extremism is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

9 posted on 07/08/2011 10:51:16 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

And Republicans? We already know that. It’s the liberals that don’t and don’t care


10 posted on 07/08/2011 10:53:50 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

let him try


11 posted on 07/08/2011 10:54:49 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

There would be an explosion akin to that caused by introducing matter to antimatter.


12 posted on 07/08/2011 11:37:54 AM PDT by Ellendra (Remember the Battle of Athens, Tennessee: Aug. 2, 1946)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If Barky likes the idea of impeachment, he should step right ahead and do it.


13 posted on 07/08/2011 11:55:22 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Eh ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

“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.


14 posted on 07/08/2011 12:21:12 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


15 posted on 07/08/2011 7:53:11 PM PDT by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson