Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 08:12 PM
Original message |
I predict the 14th Amendment is still in play.. IF... |
|
.. they don't hand Obama a clean debt ceiling bill.
Yes, yes, I know, he's said that he won't go that way.
Well he hasn't.
He said "he hasn't had a convincing argument yet".
If it gets down to 11:55p on Aug 1st and the teabaggers still hold the GOP's nuts in a vice... you watch. Executive Order with a National Security cite and invoking the 14th amendment not to raise the debt ceiling, but to just say "it's in accordance with the constitution, we don't recognize it, we carry on with the full faith and credit of the US intact". And let the GOP deal with the even bigger pile of shit it will bring.
Why hasn't he put that on the map before now? Would you tell people you have a nuke armed and ready to explode up their ass to give them time to run.
|
Submariner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 08:15 PM
Response to Original message |
1. It's 'Signing Statement' time |
|
Bush signed hundreds of them to run his agenda through. Time for Obama to do the same.
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. You have to have a bill to have a signing statement.. |
|
Executive Order is the thing you're looking for.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 08:29 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 08:34 PM
Response to Original message |
4. If it were seriously in play, Obama and senior administration officials |
|
wouldn't never have spent the last few weeks casting doubt on its legality.
I don't know much about the endgame of all this, but I am convinced it will not involve a "14th amendment solution"
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. I have the perfect analogy for that, but I can't use it. |
|
But you can consider it classic mis-direction.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 08:42 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
pa28
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 09:06 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Maybe if Obama had held his cards closer to vest. |
|
Edited on Tue Jul-26-11 09:08 PM by pa28
At this point using the 14th amendment would depend on the President's stated belief that it was valid and having the court prove otherwise.
Unfortunately he's already taken that particular arrow out of his own quiver. Here is what he said:
"There's a provision in our Constitution that speaks to making sure that the United States meets its obligations, and there have been some suggestions that a president could use that language to basically ignore this debt ceiling rule, which is a statutory rule; it's not a constitutional rule," Obama said.
He said, "I have talked to my lawyers ... They're not persuaded that that is a winning argument."
Maybe it can still be used in an emergency situation but he's really undermined his own position IMO.
|
discopants
(457 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 09:28 PM
Response to Original message |
8. The GOP strategy is to impeach no matter the outcome. |
|
Impeach if the debt ceiling is not raised and the country defaults, or impeach if the President issues an executive order using the 14th.
You can count on it. The GOP House will immediately present articles of impeachment. The House GOP will take maybe 5 minutes to vote on it.
|
DrToast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-26-11 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
9. The 14th Ammendment won't help much |
|
People won't want to buy debt that could be deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. Interest rates would still rise sharply.
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 01:28 PM
Response to Original message |
|
.. sounds like this is the endgame plan kids.
|
ps1074
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 01:36 PM
Response to Original message |
11. They will impeach him if he invokes the 14th |
|
They will impeach him faster than you can imagine.
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
.. it would just show how craven they are.
|
Llewlladdwr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 02:12 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Could anyone provide a link to the text in the 14th Amendment that authorizes the Executive to raise revenues? Thanks.
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. This has noting to do with 'rasiing revenues' |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-27-11 03:50 PM by Rosco T.
.. it's paying what's ALREADY SPENT.
You know a 'debt'.
14th Amendment -
Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Got that?
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ..... shall not be questioned.
In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."
The CONGRESS can NOT REFUSE TO PAY THE DEBTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
|
Llewlladdwr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. Okay, so the debt is valid. |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-27-11 03:54 PM by Llewlladdwr
Where does it say the Executive gets to usurp Congress' power to raise revenues or borrow money? It doesn't. It doesn't even say that the debts will be paid, only that their validity shall not be questioned.
Valid debts frequently go unpaid...
*Edited cause I can't spell.
|
Shrek
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. What debts will not be paid if the debt ceiling isn't raised? |
|
And what constiutional provision grants borrowing authority to the executive in the absence of congressional action?
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
21. It is an open question |
|
A legal issue that has never been decided.
Obama could do whatever he does, get sued, or sue to enjoin enforcement of the debt ceiling with a theory that it is unconstitutional.
|
Phx_Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 02:46 PM
Response to Original message |
14. When was it ever "in play?" |
whosinpower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 03:09 PM
Response to Original message |
15. I think the 14 amendment has ALWAYS been in play |
|
I think the GOP - using the debt ceiling as leverage is - BREAKING THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
It is not up to the president to invoke it - it has always been there....they are not abiding by it.
They are not doing their jobs.
How can the president sign something that is not on his desk?
|
Proles
(229 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 03:25 PM
Response to Original message |
16. I extremely doubt the |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-27-11 03:26 PM by Proles
US Supreme Court would deem the enactment of the "14th" illegal. What Supreme Court could in good conscience deem it illegal, long after the debt cieling extension had been enacted? They'd basically be responsible for dipping the US and the world back into economic turmoil.
The liberal Supreme Court Justices and Kennedy would support it at least.
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
18. Yeah, problem is there is already a SOCTUS ruling that validates the 14th, section 4.. |
Morizovich
(196 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:26 PM
Response to Original message |
22. But he has to USE it! |
Proles
(229 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
|
President Obama didn't exactly say he wouldn't do it. He left the door open. I'm sure he'd use it as a last resort to avoid default.
|
CrazyBob
(118 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 06:57 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The arguments for it are weak. And if another president did it, we'd all be up in arms.
|
Igel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 07:36 PM
Response to Original message |
|
To be used by those weak in principles against the weak of mind in a struggle that's long on power and short on responsibility.
In other words, the usual sort of cudgel people pick up in DC.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 09:32 PM
Response to Original message |