UPDATE: If This Is an Impeachment Trap by the Teabaggers, They have a surprise Coming...

[berni_mccoy]

President Obama won't allow the government to break any law in order to avert a default crisis. And since authority to ignore the debt limit is questionable, he won't break the law first and ask for permission later. Most people and pundits discussing the debt ceiling have forgotten the third branch of Government: The Court. I predict he will bring suit against the House to the Supreme Court in order to avert default. This would make any action he takes as non-impeachable and any successful vote to impeach in the House will fail at the Senate and Supreme Court levels.

To clarify, I expect that the President would seek to have the law that currently implements the debt ceiling to be undone or found Unconstitutional.

On Update: It certainly looks as if Impeachment is the Teabagger endgame in the default crisis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023854103

[AmBlue]

1. Let it please be so!

And sooner rather than later preferably. Or do they have to do the deed before damages can be complained of?

[berni_mccoy]

2. I believe for a suit to be brought, a party must be damaged..

[RC]

10. How about 350 million people?

Is that a big enough party?

[berni_mccoy]

11. I don't disagree. Damage has certainly been done. But not yet by default.

[BlueStreak]

15. Obama won't bring suit. I don't even know how that would be possible

and there is no reason for him to do so. If he wanted to give the teabaggers an escape route, he would have invoked the 14th already. He didn't do that, partly because of impeachment implications, but mostly to make the teabaggers own their actions.

Impeachment is a non-starter anyway. It takes 67 votes in the Senate and that will never happen.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. So, I'm going to be Ms. Technical here,

Impeachment is done in the House, conviction occurs in the Senate. See Bill Clinton.

And, actually, he can't invoke the 14th Amendment because we haven't technically defaulted . . . yet.

[BlueStreak]

31. The question was "How can POTUS sue the Congress for defaulting?"

I don't see how that is even possible.

And re: the 14th, I agree. Until the Treasury runs out of cash, it is only a threat to invoke the 14th.

The 14th is a bit dicey because it says debts cannot be questioned. Taken literally, that could mean that you have to honor all the TBills and savings bonds as they are presented. That is not exactly the same thing as saying we have to make timely payments for all ongoing operating expenses. The debt limit says that Treasury cannot borrow more money to pay operating expenses, which is not exactly the same thing as not honoring TBills and savings bonds. So I think POTUS could make a technical argument that the Constitution requires him to honor all the TBills and savings bonds, which is the first concern about "default". And in essence this would be an argument that POTUS does indeed have the authority -- indeed the responsibility to prioritize.

So I think POTUS would be on firm ground to say that "Today because our cash balance is low, we are only settling interest payments and bond expiration. Everything else will be held up until we have more cash."

Procedurally this would probably be a real nightmare. Moreover, the goal is to punish the teabaggers for their reckless behavior so they will not do it the next time. So POTUS has chosen to take the 14th completely off the table. That essentially raises the stakes for the teabaggers because it means there is a whole additional constituency coming after them.

[Le Taz Hot]

34. Interesting insight on the 14th . . .

one that I haven't read. Thanks for that.

[BlueStreak]

41. Yes, I have puzzled over Obama's stance on the 14th

I think in the end:

a) he doesn't want to give the teabaggers anything remotely approaching a legitimate argument for impeachment; but mostly

b) He wants to use it as a sword rather than a shield.

Nobody can legitimately criticize Obama for NOT invoking the 14th. His response is "That is my reading of the Constitution. Hey, I'm just doing my job. If you don't like the nation defaulting, go tell the teabaggers -- better yet, isolate them from decision-making today and vote them out of office in 2014."

[malaise]

39. Isn't the Constitution being damaged? n/t

[Demeter]

40. What constitution?

The one the NSA tore up?

[jmowreader]

45. Think Bush v. Gore

The only damage Bush was facing was loss of the deposit on the U-haul, but they took the case anyway.

[SamYeager]

3. Just a point about impeachment.

Other than the fact that the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate, and has no vote at all, the courts have no role whatsoever in impeachment.

Back to the point at hand, regardless of what the House does, the Senate will not convict.

[dairydog91]

4. Um, what?

If you can get the votes for impeachment, you can impeach. It's a question of political power. I don't think SCOTUS has any significant power of review.

[displacedtexan]

16. To impeach merely means to accuse. The house accuses & the senate tries the case

and the senate either convicts or doesn't. Are you too young to remember the Clinton impeachment?

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. He better do it pretty damn quick (the next two days)

or it will make no difference.

They can impeach with a simple majority, but it will never pass muster in the Senate.

[zipplewrath]

6. No such thing

There is no such thing as a "non-impeachable" action. And this court could very easily declare that it is not authorized to handle the case.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. How can the USSC override congressional purview?

[Sheldon Cooper]

8. You're kidding, right?

SCOTUS put its stamp of approval on the ACA, and that hasn't stopped the House Republicans from losing their minds. And you think this would? No chance.

[berni_mccoy]

9. No, but the Supreme Court could find the law that dictates raising the debt ceiling Unconstitutional

That would clear the way to allow the President to act without violating law.

[Sheldon Cooper]

12. But that would never stop the Knuckleheads from impeaching the President.

They don't CARE about courts or laws or anything else. What unites and drives them is their hatred of Obama and if they put their minds to it, they can impeach him. All they need are the requisite number of votes in the House to pull it off. That doesn't mean they'll remove the Prez because there's no way the Senate would agree to it, but that will not stop them from trying.

They are single-minded and stupid. SCOTUS is irrelevant to them.

[berni_mccoy]

18. Don't be so sure. Moderate House GOP members would not go along, and I doubt they would get

a majority vote. Impeaching after Obama goes to the USSC would be the epitaph on the tombstones of the political careers of anyone voting to impeach.

[Sheldon Cooper]

22. They only need 218 votes, and I think they'd get it.

Hell, I think there are blue dog Democrats who would vote for it. Look, you may be right in that they wouldn't have the votes, but any action by SCOTUS would not be the determining factor.

[berni_mccoy]

24. I don't think for a second any dems would vote to impeach on these grounds

And Dems only need 16 Repubs to not vote. That's doable given the circumstances. We'll agree to disagree on this hypothetical. Care to make a wager?

[Le Taz Hot]

19. So, let them impeach.

The Senate won't convict and I doubt the House would have enough votes anyway. The closer to mid-term elections, the farther away the mainstream Republicans are going to want to get from the Teaklanners.

[Chichiri]

13. I don't think one branch of government can sue another.

Can it?

[berni_mccoy]

20. Yes, and there is precedence.

[woodsprite]

25. Can "We the people" bring a class action suit against the House for breach of contract?

They're not representing the people, and that's what they were hired/elected to do.

[BainsBane]

14. What about the trillion dollar coin?

That doesn't break a law

[berni_mccoy]

21. Possibly, but I think involving the Supreme Court strengthens the 3-branch system of government

While the trillion dollar coin weakens it.

And if I know Obama, I think he'll try suing first, coin second.

[Stallion]

23. What % of Public Support Would Impeachment Have?

15-20%? The Democratics would sweep the 2014 and 2016 elections. Its almost a dream come true for Democrats if they tried. I would think Americans would be very solidlly behind the President especially if he stepped in after a big market fall.

[calimary]

42. Welcome to DU, Stallion!

Glad you're here! What I'm wondering is - are we seeing this as more evidence of stale, non-thinking, repeated knee-jerk idiocy that the enemy is embracing?

As in - "Oh yeah? So that's all you do? Try to impeach a Democrat in his second term? Is that what time your little clock on the wall says it is? Oops! Second term Democrat. Time to impeach! That's all you've got? Is THIS the way it's gonna be every single damn time?"

[dballance]

26. I don't know what action Obama could bring to the Court

Also, the Court is loathe to get involved in procedural issues in the Congress. There has to be an issue for the court to decide. They cannot compel the Congress to do anything and I doubt they'd even consider trying.

The Court is not mommy and daddy who should take sides between the childish House and the Executive Branch. They cannot, and will not do that.

[berni_mccoy]

27. It's not a procedural issue that prevents Obama from acting...

It's a legal one.

There is a law that implements the Debt Ceiling.

If found partially or entirely Unconstitutional, the debt ceiling would raise when Congress spent the money.

[dballance]

28. So you're saying take the 1917 law to the Court as unconstitutional under the 14th?

That's an idea worth pursuing. Now, the question would be does the Executive Branch have standing to do so?

[berni_mccoy]

29. Exactly, but I think we have to default in order to do it...

[Stallion]

30. President Would Simply Direct Treasury to Pay Bills Under 14th Amendment

then a party with standing would have to sue The Treasury Secretary and Obama for violation of the Debt Ceiling Act

[berni_mccoy]

33. Obama won't do that. He'd rather have the USSC find the Debt Ceiling Act unconstitutional...

which it probably is.

[Stallion]

37. No that would simply be an affirmative defense

asserted by the Treasury/President .to the lawsuit brought by persons with standing that would likely seek injunctive/declaratory relief. In essence President/Treasury would be assert a defense that they were legally justified based on the requirements of the 14th Amendment and that the Debt Ceil Act is unconstitutional to the extent it conflicts with the Constitutional mandate

[elleng]

32. He might, but it would take a while to resolve in court,

and much damage would be done before a final decision.

Your point is good, tho,

[berni_mccoy]

36. USSC was fast to decide Gore v. Bush.

Extraordinary measures could be taken by Treasury to prevent default in the interim.

And USSC could grant stay on Debt Ceiling Law allowing debts to be paid until judgement.

[Baitball Blogger]

35. Fourteenth Amendment.

yawn.

[JCMach1]

44. Yeah, dare the Republicans to take it to court, or impeach...

I am sure he already has an AG legal finding on the table as just one of the options...

[Myrina]

38. I wish he would be able to find the GOP unconstitutional, at its base.

Disband and scatter, immediately.

[calimary]

43. THIS^^^^!!!