How Would the Supreme Court Rule on Obama Raising the Debt Ceiling Himself?

The New Republic ^ | July 29, 2011 | Jeff Rosen

[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.

[Polybius]

...debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion...

The debts incurred for the surge in Iraq are clearly covered--that was definitely spent to suppress an insurrection or rebellion.

Well, let's not twist meaning of the 14th Amendment like the Democrats are trying to do.

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment did not refer to any "insurrection or rebellion" anywhere at any time. It dealt specifically with THE Rebellion.

AKA: "The Civil War", "The Great Rebellion", "The War of Northern Aggression".

The purpose of Section 4 was to let it be known to all creditors that any U.S. Government debt incurred during the Civil War would be honored but any Confederate debt was illegal and void.

[CT]

I believe Obama was not a teacher of law, or law professor. It is my understanding he was more like a TA, or lecturer. And I can believe he lectures. But he is also an idiot.

[CT]

I believe Obama was not a teacher of law, or law professor. It is my understanding he was more like a TA, or lecturer. And I can believe he lectures. But he is also an idiot.

[Polybius]

I believe Obama was not a teacher of law, or law professor. It is my understanding he was more like a TA, or lecturer. And I can believe he lectures. But he is also an idiot.

The language and intention of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment is quite clear.

I do not believe that Obama and the Democrats pushing for the "14th Amendment option" are that stupid but I do believe that they are that shameless and lawless.

[Verginius Rufus]

Obama was an adjunct (which is somewhat higher than a T.A.). Reportedly he got the position because political pressure was placed on the University of Chicago--and supposedly he spent class time talking about basketball.

Anyone smart enough to be in the University of Chicago law school probably knew more about the Constitution than Obama anyway.

[george76]

Obama was not a law professor. ..more like a visiting lecturer.

[ripley]

The Progressives want “unity” in the country.

Josef Stalin had it, Adolf Hitler had it, same for
Mr. Mao, Mr. Ho, Mr. Lenin and Mr. Castro.

If Mr. Obama raises the debt ceiling by himself, his followers will be dancing in the streets celebrating “unity”. (What a dangerous bunch of scu&bags.)

IMHO

[Mike Darancette]

While the suit was being adjudicated American debt would be poison.

[meyer]

We must assume that a rabid cornered animal will do what comes naturally.

Nothing beyond the scope of Animal Control personnel.

[hstacey]

I was married to a lawyer for 34 years. Thank you, but I know what con law is. But thank you for your input.

[hstacey]

I was married to a lawyer for 34 years. Thank you, but I know what con law is. But thank you for your input.

[Lmo56]

This is eerily like Clinton v. City of New York, where the Supreme Court ruled the Line Item Veto unconstitutional under current provisions.

“[R]epeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 (1983). There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

[BigSkyFreeper]

Removing the 14th Amendment gives him the power of a tyrant. Rending the Congress useless and the people powerless.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The ones pushing the 14th Amendment option don’t give a rats rear end about the Constitution, this country, or it’s founding. They are Marxists. The enemy within.

[Gaffer]

He might try it...if he can't get no satisfaction from his puppets (Reid and Boehner). Of course, that might invite the USSC to attempt to slap his wrist.

Even if they ruled against him, he could declare a national emergency and rule with impugnity. I'd get really afraid when you start to see the ranks of FEMA expand exponentially, you know, with that Civilian Defense Corps he talked about? As equally well-funded and as well staffed as the Department of Defense?

[Publius Maximus]

I bet they would throw the case out of court for lack of standing.