Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Would the Supreme Court Rule on Obama Raising the Debt Ceiling Himself?
The New Republic ^ | July 29, 2011 | Jeff Rosen

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; debtceiling; debtdeal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: Verginius Rufus
...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.

61 posted on 07/30/2011 4:40:59 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 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.


62 posted on 07/30/2011 4:51:29 PM PDT by CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 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.


63 posted on 07/30/2011 4:51:46 PM PDT by CT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

64 posted on 07/30/2011 5:02:33 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: CT
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.

65 posted on 07/30/2011 5:40:03 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

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


66 posted on 07/30/2011 5:59:24 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

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


67 posted on 07/30/2011 6:11:29 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

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


68 posted on 07/30/2011 6:12:55 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Obama, eat your GOPeas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Nothing beyond the scope of Animal Control personnel.

69 posted on 07/30/2011 7:01:37 PM PDT by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

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


70 posted on 07/30/2011 8:08:32 PM PDT by hstacey (Army Mom...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

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


71 posted on 07/30/2011 8:08:38 PM PDT by hstacey (Army Mom...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
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."

72 posted on 07/30/2011 9:45:51 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates

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


73 posted on 07/31/2011 2:57:20 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (You have entered an invalid birthday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

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.


74 posted on 07/31/2011 3:00:23 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (You have entered an invalid birthday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
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?

75 posted on 07/31/2011 3:03:04 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

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


76 posted on 07/31/2011 3:21:39 AM PDT by Publius Maximus (It was a nice Republic, while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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