Posted on 07/30/2011 1:45:56 PM PDT by SteveH
“I’ve talked to my lawyers,” President Obama said in explaining his dismissal of the argument that Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes him to raise the debt ceiling if Congress fails to act. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.” But who are President Obama’s cowering lawyers, and why would the former constitutional law professor defer to their overly cautious prediction that the Supreme Court would rule against Obama if asked to adjudicate a dispute between the president and Congress? In fact, it’s far more likely that the Court would refuse to hear the case. And even if the justices did agree to hear it, the conservative justices would be torn between their dislike of Obama and their commitment to expanding executive power at all costs. If all the justices are true to their constitutional philosophies, the Court would rule for Obama by a lopsided margin.
As Matthew Zeitlin has argued in TNR, if Obama invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, the most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case. [...]
When it comes to individual taxpayers, they’re likely barred from establishing standing to sue by the definitive precedent on the debt clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the 1935 Perry case.
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
Not questioning the presence of an armed populace. However, do I understand that you are ready to hide behind trees and kill American soldiers who are obeying orders from the CIC to put down what will be presented as an illegal insurrection?
Details, I know. But I do wonder when it’s bad enough for that to happen.
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; . . . To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.Those roles are pretty clearly within the sole authority of the Congress. A debt limit abrogation by the President would be to borrow additional money on the credit of the United States, authority to do which Article II does not grant Him and which the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant Him either.
"Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The President has no authority without congress enabling him to do so.
Honduras was practice for just such a situation.
“I assume con law as you call it is a low prestige and low priority subject, probably because there isn’t a lot of money in it.”
Not at all! I am sorry I gave the impression. One year of it is mandatory in all the schools I know of, and it really is the key to the kingdom. The -Constitution- is largely irrelevant, but the manipulation and evasion of its restrictions are of paramount importance to many.
“Whichever way they would rule, it would be 5-4. The entire Pustule on the Potomac needs to lanced, drained, and cauterized.”
True. Gross visual. Thanks.
{Time to reign in the Imperial Executive}
About two hundred years late, I am afraid. I hold out faint hope that the American people even want to be American anymore. We have our corporations bought up by foreign interests, or at least they have large chunk of them.
Henry Kissinger suggested to the Shaw, that he could just raise the price of oil to finance his arms buildup, and the rest is history. I see little difference in Henry and Soros. God help us all.
Does obama have “standing”?
Congress is the ONLY branch authorized to pass laws - the President only signs them so they are enacted.
The President CANNOT unilaterally enact a measure on his own - CLEARLY unconstitutional.
The CURRENT debt limit is the ONLY one CURRENTLY authorized by law - without a NEW debt ceiling [authorized by Congress], the President can do NOTHING ...
They ignore Section 5 because the liberal view is that Obama should take the power on himself, because it’s being done in support of a liberal cause. It would be done to go around those pesky Tea Party Republicans in Congress who won’t cooperate with Obama and Democrats. The Tea Party Republicans are thought of as a nuisance by good Democrats, not as equals in the Congress.
This sounds tongue in cheek, but it’s true that the liberal view is that the Constitution can be ignored or words twisted as long as it’s done to support the liberal side of the issue of the day.
{Therefore, he cannot act unilaterally}
Surely you jest? The Congress just allowed him to unilaterally declare ware by calling it a UN obligation. Further he has been handing out billions all over the Middle East, promising everywhere he goes to send money, except Joplin.
True. Gross visual. Thanks.
___________________________
Proper assessment is vital. You are quite welcome.
All it would take is one congressman to make a public statement that Congress "could not guarantee" the payment of any T-bills issued beyond the debt ceiling, and government credit stops DEAD.
There’s another issue that’s pretty basic. Defaulting on the current debt is not the President’s only option, he has ongoing revenue sources that are sufficient to make the debt payments if he cuts somewhere else, therefore there’s no nexis between denying him the right to borrow more money and “questioning” the debt.
“how do you get anyone to buy the debt? “
That was my thought too.
The market wouldn’t buy it because it wasn’t ‘authorized by law’ and wasn’t ‘backed by the full faith and credit of the United States’.
But the Federal Reserve could!
Then that “debt” would be an electoral issue and the Dems’ platform would be “Raise taxes, save the Fed!”. The media would trumpet what a disaster it would be for minorities and seniors and women not to save the Fed and the Dems would win the congress and authorize the debt.
The debts incurred for the surge in Iraq are clearly covered--that was definitely spent to suppress an insurrection or rebellion.
This goes on and on and on.
IT DOESN’T MATTER. It only buys 7 weeks! FY 2011’s Continuing Resolution for spending authority expires 1 October.
If he attempted such a thing, the House would be so enraged that he would find himself with a $150 billion FY2012 CUT. Guaranteed election defeat.
They’d also insist on his resignation before approving an FY2012 CR, and probably get four Democrat Senate votes to agree after he usurped Congressional authority.
The pitchforks, torches, and rope would get to Washington long before the case got to the Supreme Court...
The very question is rediculous
Obama’s argument is the following:
Because the 14th Amendment requires that the “validity” of US government debt “not be questioned,” the president has under that provision the implied power to do whatever he reasonably determines is necessary in order to keep that “validity” from being questioned. That includes issuing more debt in order to raise funds such that the “validity” of the already-issued debt can not “be questioned.”
As a legal matter, this is one of the most brazenly false arguments we have seen from the Obamunists, even beyond the unconstitutional act of using the US military to declare war on Libya without Congressional action.
This has to do with the meaning of the word “validity.” The term “validity” with respect to a debt security has a long-established meaning, and it does not at all mean what the Obamunists claim.
A “valid” debt security means that what you hold is a genuine and properly authorized obligation of the person who purportedly issued it. A “valid” security does not mean that you will necessarily be paid.
The GM bondholders who got screwed in the government/union takeover of GM all held “valid” debt securities. That didn’t mean they got paid.
Here is the difference between a valid and an invalid debt security:
You walk up to the Treasury window with your T-bond and hand it to the clerk for payment. On its face, in place of the signature of the US Treasurer, it is signed by “Mickey Mouse” (maybe a bad example, because Geithner sort of is Mickey Mouse). The clerk hands it back to you, saying “not valid.”
You walk up to the Treasury window with your T-bond and hand it to the clerk for payment. He looks at it, and says, “Yep that’s a valid T-bond. But I don’t have any money to give you.”
We are dealing with the second case, not the first case. Not having money to pay the outstanding debt, as a legal matter, does not have anything to do with whether that debt is “valid.”
So there is certainly no basis for Obama to claim that this empowers him to do things like unilaterally issue more debt in order to pay the existing debt.
In fact, the additional debt issued by Obama would NOT be valid, because it was not properly authorized as required by the Constitution.
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.