Why Obama cannot be allowed to raise the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment

As many of you already know, some are calling for Obama to use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. This cannot be allowed, as it would be a step towards a presidential dictatorship in the US.

Here is the Amendment in question:

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.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Source

I fail to see how this gives the president power to raise the debt ceiling, when it very clearly says CONGRESS, not the president. As it is, the 14th Amendment argument seems to be very weak.

IF Obama does invoke the 14th Amendment, there is a timeline that will likely play out of what will occur:
-House Republicans would be outraged and likely bring impeachment charges
-The bill would fall in the Democratic Senate
-2012 comes and Obama would likely be voted out of office
-But the loophole would likely remain open for future presidents to exploit
-It would significantly reduce the bargaining power of parties in future debt discussions
*Would almost certainly result in a debt downgrade
*Washington would likely continue spending as before

As a result, it is my conclusion that Obama CANNOT be allowed to raise the debt ceiling. Not that we could control it if he did, but I would argue that a default would result in a better economic and political situation than a unilateral debt limit increase. They both are undesired situations, but a default would be the lesser of two evils.

I read in an article yesterday that said two options the president can legally do but is holding off as a last resort.

1. Since the president cannot print paper money, there is no law against coinage. He would mint two platinum coins with a face value of 1 trillion each and deposit them into the federal reserve.

2. Sell the federal reserve all government owned property for 2 trillion and then after the fed deposited the monies in the account, sell the land back to the government for a buck!

If I can find the article, I will post the link!

Isn't this debt crisis really caused by your constitution anyway? The whole idea of having a debt ceiling was because the government needed more money during the first world war so you didn't have these political spats when the government needed more money. You don't have a problem paying your bills just raise the debt ceiling like good people and fight it out at the next presidential election. Its your form of democracy.

At the moment the USA looks very silly and I know a lot of normal Americans feel the same. So forget about impeachment and 14th Amendment and raise the credit limit if not for just your own sakes but for the rest of the financial world.

I agree on this one. I don't see how the president can enforce the 14th Amendment when the 14th Amendment clearly says that only congress can enforce the article in reference.

However, I am not constitutional expert, and I would THINK that Obama would know that this provision is in there. Is it at all possible we are misinterpreting? I have no idea....

Originally posted by Mudman21
I read in an article yesterday that said two options the president can legally do but is holding off as a last resort.

1. Since the president cannot print paper money, there is no law against coinage. He would mint two platinum coins with a face value of 1 trillion each and deposit them into the federal reserve.

2. Sell the federal reserve all government owned property for 2 trillion and then after the fed deposited the monies in the account, sell the land back to the government for a buck!

If I can find the article, I will post the link!

Here is your link

articles.cnn.com...:OPINION

come on people the constitution is just a piece of paper.

pick and choose what matters and how it gets "interpreted" that is the order of things in the land if stupidity.

the debt was accumulated with illegal means and they are going to use legal means to keep illegally spending what they dont have.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Still, i can't say I approve. I feel like the whole idea of Congress is for them to work together, and if they can't agree, then they bring down the entire system. I'd rather have that then the president going rogue because that opens the door for further abuses.

Originally posted by nunya13
I agree on this one. I don't see how the president can enforce the 14th Amendment when the 14th Amendment clearly says that only congress can enforce the article in reference.

However, I am not constitutional expert, and I would THINK that Obama would know that this provision is in there. Is it at all possible we are misinterpreting? I have no idea....

The President can do this because Congress is giving the President conflicting orders.

All the debt that needs to be payed has been approved by Congress, and Congress has imposed this debt ceiling. By law, the President is supposed to carry out both...if he can't, he can "ignore" one of the orders to fulfill the other. He isn't going to ignore paying the debt, so he will ignore the debt ceiling.

This article explains it well on page 3.

articles.cnn.com...:OPINION

If the president reasonably believes that the public debt will be put in question for either reason, Section 4 comes into play once again. His predicament is caused by the combination of statutes that authorize and limit what he can do: He must pay appropriated monies, but he may not print new currency and he may not float new debt. If this combination of contradictory commands would cause him to violate Section 4, then he has a constitutional duty to treat at least one of the laws as unconstitutional as applied to the current circumstances.

This would be like a statute that ordered the president to hire 50 new employees provided that none of them is a woman. The second requirement violates the Constitution, so the president can hire the 50 employees and ignore the discriminatory provision.

Here the president would argue that existing appropriations plus the debt ceiling create an unconstitutional combination of commands. Therefore he chooses to obey the appropriations bill -- which was passed later in time anyway -- and ignores the debt ceiling. He orders the secretary of the Treasury to issue new debt sufficient to pay the government's bills as they come due.

Originally posted by mossme89
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Still, i can't say I approve. I feel like the whole idea of Congress is for them to work together, and if they can't agree, then they bring down the entire system. I'd rather have that then the president going rogue because that opens the door for further abuses.

And you don't think having the entire system crashing down doesn't open doors for abuse???

If the "entire system" is brought down...that includes the Constitution.

Careful for what you wish for.

Originally posted by ispyed
Isn't this debt crisis really caused by your constitution anyway? The whole idea of having a debt ceiling was because the government needed more money during the first world war so you didn't have these political spats when the government needed more money. You don't have a problem paying your bills just raise the debt ceiling like good people and fight it out at the next presidential election. Its your form of democracy.

At the moment the USA looks very silly and I know a lot of normal Americans feel the same. So forget about impeachment and 14th Amendment and raise the credit limit if not for just your own sakes but for the rest of the financial world.

The debt ceiling debate is just the political chess piece being used at the moment. A few months ago it was the budget extension, before that it was continuing resolution and the extension of the bush tax cuts. The chess piece changes from time to time, but are all used for the same reason.

These issues are the catalyst that allows a divided government to have debate about the more important issues.

The issue is federal spending for the Tea Party, and the issue is more taxes for the democrats. The main stream republicans are stuck in the middle. This is how politics works unfortunately. Each party uses the next crisis as a chance to push their agenda.

They will both push and push until the last minute and then pass something to save face, each side waiting for the other side to blink.

Political Chicken.

This provision in the 14th Amendment addressed the debts of the Union versus the debts of the Confederacy. It basically said that the federal government is responsible for its own debt, not for any debt incurred by the 11 Confederate States before Appomattox. Using it as a modern political convenience is taking it out of context. The point of it is to warn future creditors that lending to any entities in rebellion or insurrection against the federal government will result in them losing their money should the insurrection fail.
The 14th Amendment needs to be clarified in a final and definitive way. It is the most abused and contorted Amendment in the Constitution. And should Obama go over Congress on the issue, he is basically declaring himself dictator of the United States.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by nunya13
I agree on this one. I don't see how the president can enforce the 14th Amendment when the 14th Amendment clearly says that only congress can enforce the article in reference.

However, I am not constitutional expert, and I would THINK that Obama would know that this provision is in there. Is it at all possible we are misinterpreting? I have no idea....

The President can do this because Congress is giving the President conflicting orders.

All the debt that needs to be payed has been approved by Congress, and Congress has imposed this debt ceiling. By law, the President is supposed to carry out both...if he can't, he can "ignore" one of the orders to fulfill the other. He isn't going to ignore paying the debt, so he will ignore the debt ceiling.

This article explains it well on page 3.

articles.cnn.com...:OPINION

If the president reasonably believes that the public debt will be put in question for either reason, Section 4 comes into play once again. His predicament is caused by the combination of statutes that authorize and limit what he can do: He must pay appropriated monies, but he may not print new currency and he may not float new debt. If this combination of contradictory commands would cause him to violate Section 4, then he has a constitutional duty to treat at least one of the laws as unconstitutional as applied to the current circumstances.

This would be like a statute that ordered the president to hire 50 new employees provided that none of them is a woman. The second requirement violates the Constitution, so the president can hire the 50 employees and ignore the discriminatory provision.

Here the president would argue that existing appropriations plus the debt ceiling create an unconstitutional combination of commands. Therefore he chooses to obey the appropriations bill -- which was passed later in time anyway -- and ignores the debt ceiling. He orders the secretary of the Treasury to issue new debt sufficient to pay the government's bills as they come due.

SO, based on the premise that Congress is giving conflicting orders, means the Moron on Chief can turn around act illegally as well?

Originally posted by mossme89
As many of you already know, some are calling for Obama to use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. This cannot be allowed, as it would be a step towards a presidential dictatorship in the US.

Well I don't really agree with you about the dictatorship argument, I agree that our congress should be allowed to monitor this.

The problem is that the debt ceiling itself might be non constitutional. This assessment is disputed by many scholars. I've heard great arguments from both sides on this law.

So it is kind of hard to know what is legal/not legal. It is a gray area issue.

Obama did mention that he does not want to invoke the 14th amendment.

When we default we are not being responsible for our debt, however the way it is written could be taken a couple different ways and technically congress is responsible for the budget.

I think you are all smart enough to realize that there is a great element of "theater" in this so-called "crisis."

The 14th Ammendment was NOT ratified and signed into law for any purpose other than to indemnify the Union for the debt of the rebellious confederate states. The sting of that unpaid debt was a message to bankers who were known to be hedging their bets during the war.

Any other interpretations of the ammendment constitutes the same abuse this 'school' of political clowns have been subjecting us to for a century.

reply to post by mudbeed


I say let it default.
I will be outside Tuesday, hoping to avoid the chunks of falling sky

Originally posted by louieprima
And should Obama go over Congress on the issue, he is basically declaring himself dictator of the United States.

I'm sorry... I loved everything you said but this. What would he be? The dictator of what? Forcing the US to own up on our debts?

That is not a dictator.

I would like to see him not use the 14th amendment and would love to see congress work things out, personally..

I have a but, though. BUT if we are going to default...he should invoke the 14th to prevent the s-storm it will cause.

To those that think that the s-storm is fake, trust me it isn't. look into economist reports and what big business says about it. It could also screw up our dollar even further as well. It wouldn't be good for any of us.

reply to post by macman

SO, based on the premise that Congress is giving conflicting orders, means the Moron on Chief can turn around act illegally as well?

It's not illegal to do this...that is the whole point of the 14th amendment (Section 4).

He will be acting CONSTITUTIONALLY...not illegally.

But that won't stop Obama haters from saying otherwise...just like you did.


Obama can't win, when he acts in accordance to the Constitution, people who claim to love and worship the Constitution will say he is acting illegally.

UNBELIEVABLE :shk:

reply to post by Maxmars

The 14th Ammendment was NOT ratified and signed into law for any purpose other than to indemnify the Union for the debt of the rebellious confederate states. The sting of that unpaid debt was a message to bankers who were known to be hedging their bets during the war.

Any other interpretations of the ammendment constitutes the same abuse this 'school' of political clowns have been subjecting us to for a century.

If that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the 14th Ammendment...then YOU are interpreting that yourself.

What makes your INTERPRETATION any more valid than someone elses???


You can't claim to know the intent...if it truly was the intent, then it should of been EXPLICITLY stated in the law.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Maxmars

 

The 14th Ammendment was NOT ratified and signed into law for any purpose other than to indemnify the Union for the debt of the rebellious confederate states. The sting of that unpaid debt was a message to bankers who were known to be hedging their bets during the war.

Any other interpretations of the ammendment constitutes the same abuse this 'school' of political clowns have been subjecting us to for a century.

If that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the 14th Ammendment...then YOU are interpreting that yourself.

What makes your INTERPRETATION any more valid than someone elses???


You can't claim to know the intent...if it truly was the intent, then it should of been EXPLICITLY stated in the law.

Agree with you on this. Many people agree this is gray area.

reply to post by ispyed

Isn't this debt crisis really caused by your constitution anyway? ...

NO!

Not at all and that is the problem. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATELY held central bank and is actually "Unconstitutional" CONGRESS is to COIN money, that is make money out of metal.

Please read: SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Congressman McFadden's speeches on impeaching the Federal Reserve OFFICERS as TRAITORS just after WWI:LINK

We and all the rest of the world have been hoaxed. Libya is getting trampled BECAUSE she said NO to the central banks.

See an interview by the author of confessions of an economic hitman It explains how the USA military is used to enforce the wishes of the central banks.

Days of Infamy explains how US citizens were tricked into war. The printing plates for Congressman Lindburgh's books on "Why your Country is at war" (WWI) and a book on the Federal Reserve were destroyed by "Government" agents DESPITE our first Amendment


Furthermore the passing or not passing the US budget and not raising the debt ceiling will have no effect on whether the USA continues to make payments on its debt. TAXES will continue to roll in and be used to pay the debt as it is already an obligation of the US government.


So what are the Insiders on Capital Hill being told?

I found this very interesting report: "Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effect" by Clinton T. Brass, Analyst in Government Organization and Management.
(subject of thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...)

He states:

.... If interim or full-year appropriations are not enacted into law, the time interval when agency appropriations are not enacted is referred to as a “funding gap.”5 A funding gap also may occur any time a CR expires and another CR (or regular appropriations bill) is not enacted immediately thereafter.

When a funding gap occurs, the federal government begins a “shutdown” of the affected activities, including the furlough of non-emergency personnel and curtailment of agency activities and services. Programs that are funded by laws other than annual appropriations acts (e.g., entitlements like Social Security) also may be affected by a funding gap, if program execution relies on activities that receive annually appropriated funding

..... www.fas.org...

That means the federal debt and probably Social Security would get paid but a bunch of useless bureaucrats would get sent home to suffer like the other 20% of out of work Americans who lost their jobs.