-
Catholic Culture In America
May 23, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Earth Day 2013: The Papal Edition
April 22, 2013 | 22 comments
-
Is God a Methodist?
April 15, 2013 | 57 comments
-
A Status Quo Budget at Best
April 11, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Marriage Issue Will Not Go Away
April 2, 2013 | 87 comments
Another Perspective
President Obama’s Trump Card
The Constitution’s default option.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are president of the United States, the leader of the Free World, the most powerful man in the galaxy. You have been negotiating, maybe in good faith, maybe not, on the matter of raising the debt ceiling. Actually, you have had your vice president out there, doing what by all accounts is a yeoman job, negotiating budget cuts. But the talks are breaking down over issues of taxes, tax expenditures, tax breaks or “revenue enhancements.” Neither the House GOP caucus nor the left wing of your own party is giving any ground. You have had it up to here with Grover Norquist and Eric Cantor and you want to get back to raising big money for your re-election campaign.
In your heart of hearts, you, the president, don’t want to give any ground either. Not many Americans really want to take the castor oil and reform entitlements or cut their farm subsidies or close the National Parks. And what’s the worst that could happen? You get re-elected and let the Bush tax cuts expire? Or maybe you lose, move back to Chicago and become an international rock star?
What’s a president to do?
Here’s what: Just ignore the debt ceiling. Just go ahead and keep paying those bills. So sue me!
In other words, President Obama, the antithesis of Andrew Jackson, should, well, pull an Andrew Jackson. This would be what the French call a fait accompli.
Sure, we Republicans and conservatives would throw a snit. But aren’t many of us, including the Speaker of the House, on record opposing defaulting on our debts? Conservative carping would be mere background noise to the big news that the President has taken charge and brushed the congressional pygmies aside for the sake of the American economy and the nation’s credit in world markets.
Let’s face it: This is President Obama’s trump card.
The president also could play the Constitution card. Specifically, he could cite Section 4 of the 14th Amendment:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred by payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
I had forgotten about this section until I saw an article in the paper about desperate Democrats looking around for a get-out-of-jail-free card. This passage may not actually represent that kind of free pass, legally speaking. But it is more than enough to give the president the high ground, politically speaking, and pretty much ignore critics. Moreover, when was the last time you recall a legal challenge seriously reining in a determined Chief Executive in war or peace? Cicero gave way to Caesar a long time ago in America.
And who would really want to challenge such a bold assertion of presidential power, at least as it relates to preserving the credit worthiness of the United States? I am betting the Republican House and Senate caucuses would pretty much suck it up and live with it.
Constitutional conservatives, be they originalists, textualists, or assorted strict constructionists, might cite various scholarly arguments in opposition to this Jacksonian move. But, really, how many voters, having heard about Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, would find those arguments compelling? I am not sure even the constitutional conservatives would.
I confess to being of two minds about this seeming eventuality. On one hand, I am completely behind using the debt ceiling expiration as an opportunity to wrestle as many budget cuts as possible from the White House, especially since popular opinion seems to detest the idea of raising the debt limit.
On the other hand (and I may be getting old), taking the chance of defaulting on our national debt runs counter to my Burkean soul. It is too radical an approach to our national predicament. Better to legitimize fiscal conservatism at the polls in 2012. Indeed, any default would be hung around the necks of the Republican Party by a media overtly friendly to the president and his congressional party.
About the Author
G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Articles by G. Tracy Mehan, III
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/06/president-obamas-trump-card
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- We Have Her Example
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 7.6.11 @ 7:08AM
You are the Auntie advising Mommy to let your screaming, thrashing, blue-faced neice have the expensive doo-dad or go to Barbados with her adult boyfriend ... anything for a quiet life, eh?
Stand firm and Just Say No. America is watching.
buckeyeman| 7.6.11 @ 10:27AM
Amen, brother!
Conservatives could not have asked for a better opportunity to unhorse King Obama. I sense a growing realization in the blogosphere that forcing zero to act like a CEO and prioritize budget items is BRILLIANT. He cannot default on the debt. The welfare state's "promises" are not debt. He (and Timmy) must choose. Just let them try their usual tricks. So what if SS or Medicare get trimmed? That's what needed to happen anyway. This is just wonderful, if only the prissy repub "leaders" will hold the line. Check and checkmate!
The Big E| 7.6.11 @ 10:41AM
Obama will have no trouble "prioritizing" budget items. He will continue to pay expenditures which promote his political agenda and will refuse to pay expenditures which do not (for example, you can bet that immigration enforcement will grind to complete halt). It's that simple. To the extent he cannot absorb all the cuts into those areas, he will blame any cuts necessary to his core constituencies on Republican refusal to raise the debt limit and on the rich being unwilling to, "pay their fair share."
I'm saying we shouldn't stand firm on the debt ceiling, we should, it's the right thing to do. But doing the right thing is often painful, and holding the line on this will get EXTREMELY painful. Indeed, it could be the tipping point which sends the mood of some in the country over the edge into the realm of violence, and frankly, that's what Obama may be counting on.
The Big E| 7.6.11 @ 10:43AM
I meant, "I'm NOT saying we shouldn't stand firm on the debt ceiling." Sorry for the typo. If I could write worth a crap I wouldn't have used a double negative there anyway.
Pete| 7.6.11 @ 11:37AM
Completely agree, and the media will help him stuntcock the whole thing. "GOP mean, takes lunches from millions of schoolchildren." Think ACORN would lose funding? No way.
John Navratil| 7.6.11 @ 4:18PM
The Big E,
You are so right. The damage he can do with his veto pens and executive orders is immense. What was it that Clinton threatened to shut down? Air Traffic Control and the U.S.D.A. if memory serves me correctly.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.11 @ 7:12AM
You may have a point, but the 14th Amendment was passed after the civil war, and Section 4 in its entirety states:
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."
As stated it does not appear to increase the President's power to authorize funds on his own.
It also would not make much sense to make that argument when you consider Section 5:
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Whether by accident or design this would appear to further limit the President's choices on the matter.
Also, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Under the line of reasoning stated in the article someone could just as easily declare that since illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of a state, then they can't be deported, etc.
JFGalt| 7.6.11 @ 12:38PM
The commerce clause is used to justify all kinds of insanities yet it doesn't stop anyone.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.11 @ 12:42PM
You're right.
Quartermaster| 7.6.11 @ 5:37PM
Because the citizens of the US have become an immoral people. Immorality knows no bounds on the actions of a people.
Dixie Pixie| 7.6.11 @ 1:56PM
Thanks Bill for posting the full text of the 14 Amendment.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the part “authorized by law “.
That part deliberately makes Congress the controlling financial authority not the President.
Therefor by the 14 Amendment, Section 4, Line 1, only Congress can control the validity of debt.
Section 4 was written to allow Congress to firm up the Unions credit with the banks after taking on so much debt during the Civil War.
It also made sure that the Union would not be held responsible for the Confederate debt or any loss incurred in the freeing of the Confederate slaves.
The President has no power under this section unless Congress finds all or part of the National Debt to be Confederate debt and then he can only discharge that debt.
This will not help Obama to incur more debt by spending more borrowed money.
On the other hand Section 4 would be a really good way to stick it to the banks by declaring that debt Confederate thus null and void.
CopyKatnj| 7.6.11 @ 2:19PM
In my opinion, the key word is debt and the 14th amendment specifies which ones. It does not say health care or entitlements such as college tuition, school lunches etc.etc.
Pay the debt and cut the entitlements.
unger| 7.6.11 @ 7:21AM
I don't see what is so very Burkean about burying the younger generations under crushing debt. It would seem to me that a true Burkean would understand the importance of passing on a viable country to the next generations.
Shamus| 7.6.11 @ 7:25AM
Debt must be authorized by law according to the amendment.
The debt ceiling specifies the amount of debt that is authorized by law. Debt exceeding the ceiling is specifically not authorized by law.
Nothing in the text of the amendment authorizes the executive branch to issue debt. This is specified as a power of the legislature elsewhere in the Constitution.
This is really very shabby legal reasoning and I would be amazed if US courts accepted it.
Furthermore, the president would create severe political problems for himself if he attempted to grab power in this fashion. He's not very popular as things stand, and this would serve to make him even less popular.
YeloStalyn| 7.6.11 @ 9:33AM
I agree with everything you say except what would happen to his popularity. It would skyrocket because a) people like a king more than a president and detest the slow moving body of Congress and b) the media would support him and train the sheeple to follow right along.
Jim| 7.6.11 @ 8:54PM
There is plenty of money poring into the treasury every day to pay the interest on the debt. The only way there would be default is not to pay the interest. That would be the President's fault and his alone, and could be a reason for impeachment because it would violate the law.
Walking Horse| 7.6.11 @ 7:45AM
It is fascinating that people are taking this argument seriously. It is a translucent veneer over the stark fact that the Federal government is operating on playground rules - making up stuff for its own convenience. Congress has submitted no Federal Budget in almost two years, in violation of Federal law. We have an Administration that is more than willing to rule by decree, abrogate bankruptcy law, ignore contempt of court rulings against itself, etc., etc.
We have a Federal government that has gone feral, placing itself above the law.
Sam Vaughn| 7.6.11 @ 8:07AM
What's the point of a debt ceiling then?
Pecos Pete| 7.6.11 @ 8:34AM
Exactly! What's the downside of NOT raising the debt ceiling? Answer: The government can't borrow any more money.
That's not a downside, that's an upside. The government collects more than enough ongoing revenue to pay the interest on the debt and to pay down treasury bonds when they come due.
The only "problem" is that the feds will have to reduce expenditures for services. I don't know about you, but for me that's an absolute positive result.
A. C. Santore| 7.6.11 @ 9:09AM
Exactly!
No-one has yet explained satisfactorily how not raising the debt ceiling will lead to default.
Do they mean that they won't be able to borrow even more money to meet our current debt obligations?
Do they mean that borrowing more money is the only way to meet our debt obligations?
Do they mean that they can't put meeting our debt obligations first - before all of the silly money they throw away on shrimp treadmills and museums for campaign trivia or whatever else they do?
Just pay the $% debts and don't pay for the rest!
And get a budget passed.
Shamus| 7.6.11 @ 9:29AM
The crafty phrasing refers to defaulting on our obligations. They don't mean defaulting on our debt, because revenue covers that ten times over. The first thing that couldn't be paid would be social security benefits. The government actually has no legally binding obligation to pay these, as they are part of a spending program which Congress can modify through legislation.
The Big E| 7.6.11 @ 9:49AM
"The government collects more than enough ongoing revenue to pay the interest on the debt and to pay down treasury bonds when they come due."
And this is where the President's power on this issue truly lies, not with the clause in the 14th Amendment cited by the author of the article. If the Government cannot borrow more money, we will still pay our ongoing debt, but something else will NOT get paid, and it will be the President who decides what gets paid and what doesn't. In that situation, you can bet the coffers of his friends and allies will still get lined, but any expenditure which does not further his political agenda will be slashed REGARDLESS of what has been appropriated for it because of need. I can see him now, comparing himself to people sitting around the dinner table deciding what does get paid and what doesn't, what things the family actually needs, and what things they don't, etc. This President is already all about paying off his friends and punishing his enemies, this situation will only make it easier for him do so, and more painful when he does.
It will be the single greatest abuse of power by any President in the history of the Country, but it may be the price we pay for doing the right thing (which is inevitably painful).
Charles Martel| 7.6.11 @ 3:02PM
The situation you describe isn’t one of a father at a kitchen table. It’s that of a kidnapper in his hideout, and the proper responsibilities of the Federal government are the hostages. “Give me the authority to borrow ever more money, or you’ll never see your loved ones again.”
That is the image to use as the answer to the 0bama “father knows best” ads you envision.
0bama isn’t a hero in this scenario. He’s not even a sympathetic character. He’s a criminal. Treat him as such.
+++
The Big E| 7.6.11 @ 4:29PM
Oh, I fully agree with you, I'm just saying that's the image Obama will try to portray. Like every other image he tries to portray, it is false.
TrueBlue| 7.6.11 @ 4:00PM
Actually it's the Congress that determines what gets spent on what, that's what the budget is for. They just haven't been doing their job (though that's mostly the Senate's fault since the House HAS passed budget bills that just get turned down). The President gets the final say with veto power, but that's the extent of his ability to determine what does and does not get paid.
Of course, he'll happily blame the Republicans for why all that stuff got cut, or for not having a budget regardless of whether he vetos it or not.
John Navratil| 7.6.11 @ 4:27PM
TrueBlue,
Indeed. Look at the "Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974". The President doesn't get to not spend (impound) authorizations in the budget. However, the budget is not in such detail that policy directives to the agencies cannot result in significant shifting of funds to, as The Big E suggest, reward friends and cronies and punish political enemies. Where the rubber meets the road is when there isn't enough cash to fully fund all departments. That's when Obama has the biggest political bat to swing. He'll furlough here and not there in order to maximize the pain for his enemies.
Clint| 7.6.11 @ 8:59AM
"If the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury can prioritize interest and debt payment to avoid a default and essentially put the government on a stringent pay-as-you-go basis. Would that involve extreme cuts in government spending? Certainly. But it could be done, if it had to.
Let's remember that the Treasury still rakes in quite a bit of money in revenues — it took in $604 billion (seasonally adjusted) in the third quarter of 2010. In FY 2010 the annual debt service was some $414 billion, working out to an average of about $104 billion per quarter. Although the numbers won't be quite the same going forward, the debt service will soak up only about one-sixth of the incoming revenues."
Josh2005| 7.6.11 @ 9:48AM
Despite claiming to be a constitutional law scholar, Obama doesn't seem to care one lick about the US Constitution. First he started hiring and firing the CEOs or private companies, then he refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act because he himself deemed it to be unconstitutional, then he started bombing Libya without Congressional approval, and now this debt limit business. The man is a tyrant, pure and simple.
TrueBlue| 7.6.11 @ 4:01PM
He became a constitutional lawyer so he could more easily find the loopholes, real or imagined.
Quartermaster| 7.6.11 @ 5:41PM
If the Obamanation is a constitutional scholar then I'm Richard Feynmann (and I'm not, obviously, since he's dead).
Anthony| 7.6.11 @ 9:49AM
Don't fall for the Faustian argument that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment allows the president to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval, in violation of Article I Sec 8. " To borrow money on the credit of the United States", as well as Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Mark Levin had a cogent and precise analysis of this ploy by Obozo and Chuck Schumer, I urge you to go to Levin's website and download it.
Levin made the argument, correctly I believe, that Sec 4 of the 14th Amendment goes exactly against the president's plan. It requires the president to honor all existing debt with current tax revenue and to REDUCE spending in other areas in order to remain solvent.
According to the government, America takes in about $175B each month in tax revenues, more than enough to service even our bloated debt.
Obozo, Schumer, and the rest of the leftists, aren't interested in solutions. They NEED more $$$ to expand the government and expand programs for social redistribution.
Obozo is on the verge of creating a Constitutional crisis. If he dares do this without Congressional approval, IMPEACHMENT is in order. The Rs had better wake the hell up, and the rest of America too, this man is on a dictatorial crusade, a direct threat to the existence of America.
If we don't draw the line in the sand now, forget it, the Constitution and our Republic will be toast.
The Big E| 7.6.11 @ 10:48AM
Obama can only create a Constitutional crisis if the Republicans are willing to call him out on it, and they're not willing to do that. If they were, they could have done so before now. If we're counting on Congressional Republicans to act as a shield between us and Obama's ambition then we are in deep, deep trouble, because while there are certainly a few willing to toe the line, most are not.
Mike| 7.7.11 @ 1:28AM
That section of the Constitution means only what Big Barry O says it means, nothing more, nothing less. So if Big Barry O'liar says it means he can do as he please, Big Barry O will do as he please, nothing more, nothing less. Big Barry O is the head President for Life of America, so he says and thinks.
Grant Johnson| 7.6.11 @ 10:02AM
This is really shoddy reasoning. No one is questioning the payment of the debt authorized by law. Obama has more than enough revenue to service our current debt, if he just decides to prioritize debt service above illegal subsidies to ACORN.
The issue is whether Obama can continue to spend and borrow and issue NEW debt without Congressional authorization. Authorizing new debt is the responsibility of Congress ("authorized by law"), and absent a budget and absent legal raising of the debt ceiling, there is no authority to do that. Furthermore, if Obama DID decide to go ahead and sell bonds anyway, would investors be eager to buy them, given the at best questionable legal premise of their issue?
This article represents the kind of legal reasoning I would expect to see from Paul Krugman. The American Spectator can do better.
The Big E| 7.6.11 @ 11:00AM
Exactly, the only real obstacle standing in the way of Obama issuing new debt is the willingness of investors to purchase. The Constitutional proscription against such actions by the President are only as good as the willingness of the Congress, and ultimately the Courts, to uphold those proscriptions.
Ultimately, the Constitution is a piece of paper. Written upon it are some of the most magnificent ideas for running a government and maintaining a free society that has ever occurred to the mind of man, but whether those ideas will mean anything in the future is dependent on the willingness of our leaders to either abide by them willingly or fight against those who won't. If they are unwilling to do those things, then ultimately, whether the Constitution means anything falls to us, the people, and whether or not we're willing to MAKE our leaders do their job, and unfortunately, I fear that most people in this country are either too ignorant to understand what's at stake, or too complicit in what's going on to want to do anything about it. Think about like this - half the people in this country pay no income taxes - they are, frankly, on the take. You think they're going to be willing to simply stand by and watch a system be dismantled which gives them whatever they want without having to do anything to earn it? I don't. You think those people even know what's in the Constitution? Do you think those that do know what's in it support it? I don't.
Martin Owens| 7.6.11 @ 10:06AM
This is post -Constitutional America.
Just as peasants in the dark ages used the stone from Roman temples to fortify the walls now needed for their shrinking cities, we stab each other with the shards of what used to be our governing framework.
It is clear that the ruling class is entirely convinced they can govern by fiat, including decreeing money into existence without lessening its value. It will be interesting, in a macabre and suicidal way, to see how far they can take it.
The Big E| 7.6.11 @ 11:03AM
This might be the best post I've read in . . . well . . . let's just say a very, VERY long time. Perfect analogy.
skip| 7.6.11 @ 4:17PM
...more so to see how they spin the blame for the blood in the streets because of it.
martin j smith| 7.6.11 @ 10:19AM
I agree with those who say that if the debt cieling issue is such a crisis the Obama could have take his end run supposedly for the "sake of the nation". Now I am not a Lawyer,constitutional or otherwise but I would disagree with those who think nothing would happen. I think there would be a mighty stink. The hard left would support Obama as would the MSM, but we could be in a real constitutional crisis with impeachment talk around and there may well be a supreme count case here. The results of that could have reverberations of unknown results.
Von Mises Jr.| 7.6.11 @ 10:56AM
This is why extension of the spending by CR was so important. If Pelosi and Reid passed the last budget over two years ago, and the Republicans extend the spending by CR, then it can be argued the GOP is complicit.
But the latter section of the clause was intended to fund the government spending if the regime is suppressing insurrection or rebellion, not inciting it.
MikeN| 7.6.11 @ 11:24AM
Who's going to buy this debt that Congress has not agreed to? It would be very easy to just not pay that.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.6.11 @ 11:37AM
Folks,
nothing good for America is going to happen with these terds in the administration...nothing.
Our House majority can staunch the bleeding, but the communists, (pardon the shorthand), are going to try their best to overturn this republic.
Hunker down and store some beans.
Wayne | 7.6.11 @ 11:47AM
When in the Army, I realized how illusory power really is. The Generals only had power because we soldier "chose" to point our guns in the other direction.
Obama has power only as long as people choose to listen to him. Let him push his lust for total power and he will see the illusory nature of power very quickly.
Son of Liberty| 7.6.11 @ 11:48AM
Defaulting on our debt would not remotely occur unless Obama is the totally incompetent executive that many of us think he is. The remedy at that point is to replace the executive.
He has about $2.6 trillion dollars a year to work with. If he pays the debt cost, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, the judicial branch, most of homeland security and military obligations he can see what he has left over. Then prioritize the rest of government from most important, to the nation not his re-election, to the least important and go from there. For example, close Departments of Education, EPA, HUD, HFA, and others; stop Foreign Aid; defund the Aclu and the like and work backwards from there.
That would be showing executive leadership while continuing to try to negotiate a deal. The Republicans should not give in on this. Obama and the Democrats have pushed the debt into the stratoshpere over the last 2 1/2 years. We shouldn't let them off the hook too easily. This is a prime time for true structural reforms and limitations on spending. We should not pass this one up in hopes of maybe another one in 2012.
saleboter| 7.6.11 @ 11:50AM
If bambam raises the ceiling by himself we might as well abolish congress - there will be no need for them anymore.
fmm| 7.6.11 @ 11:57AM
Section 4 simply confirms that the debt can not go unnoticed and is to be paid before any other obligations if this circumstance arrives. The GOP is adhering directly to this clause with cuts being required in other programs to insure the debt is paid.
Al Adab| 7.6.11 @ 12:29PM
Simply put, our nation is no longer operating as a nation of law but we are rules by fiat without regard to limitations or restrictions on any power or authority. That is the definition of "soft tyranny" at the very least. Expediency and exegency in the name of doing the right thing or fairness as a class warfare rubric, will lead us inevitably into a harsher tyranny than we ever imagined.
Jeff| 7.6.11 @ 12:45PM
actually the 14th makes it clear the Obama must pay the debt service if he has the resources ...
which he does by about a 10 to 1 ratio ...
It is exactly Timmy G's threat that the 14th was written to forbid ...
squalis| 7.6.11 @ 12:58PM
As I am not a lawyer, maybe I don't have a correct understanding, but it seems to me the clause "authorized by law" does not give the President unilateral authority to spend. Can someone help me with this?
Dave Williams| 7.6.11 @ 1:22PM
Let us also not forget that the jug-eared narcissist could also declare martial law...I'm guessing it'll be around October 15, 2012, when he realizes he's about to be booted out of the office he so completely demeans. Stock up on food and ammo, folks, I fear things are about to get mighty, mighty ugly. I hope they don't, but...
WL| 7.6.11 @ 1:53PM
Here we go....lots of reasons to cave...
Obama's gonna ignore it anyway...
and the best one is the old Media line...how it will be hung around the Republicans necks because the Media supports the democrats...
Etc Etc etc...
Well, why do we elect Republicans anyway?
The M-E-D-I-A have the last say...
We don't mean anything...
The MEEEDDDIAAAA won't approve.
We have to go along with Democrats to get along...
Because the MEEEEDDDIIIAAA will side with Obama.
Our side deserves to lose.
Conservative Bob| 7.6.11 @ 2:23PM
Given what we have witnessed over the past 2 plus years nothing that Obama does will surprise me.
I think that some of what the author suggests would be true. The Media glee club will sing in full throated support of his decisive executive action and all the dems would pat each other on the back.
But this is not an action in isolation but a continuation of a clear pattern of behavior. That of going against the will of the people and the rule of law as sited here in other posts.
It denies completely the midterm election results which nationally were the largest GOP victory since the late 30s.
The anger that gave life to the grass roots insurrection that threw out 'safe' dems would ignite in a fury so strong that the existence of the Dem party would be brought into question.
Do not let the media spin since the midterm and the action of the Dems in the Lame duck frame your view. It is just that spin. The reality is we are the overwhelming majority and an extra constitutional action regardless of how it was spun would seal the fate of not just the president but the electoral prospects democrat party for a very long time.
I say go ahead Mr. President, make the bold move, consolidate all of your opposition and reap the whirlwind.
GENE HAUBER| 7.6.11 @ 3:06PM
THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF IS "THE" LEGAL DOCUMENT FOR REINING IN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT REP.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT WE ARE GOVERNED WITH OUR CONSENT.........UNLIKE ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE UNDERSTAND THAT???????
IMPEACH OR IMPRISON NOW!!
G. Tracy Mehan, III| 7.6.11 @ 3:09PM
OK, it has been great fun. But for a more scholarly discussion of what President Obama can and cannot do under the 14th Amendment, check out this article by Prof. John Baker of Catholic U. Law School
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....buckley-jr
GENE HAUBER| 7.6.11 @ 3:16PM
TO SAM VAUGHN:
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SAID MORE SUCCINCTLY.
YOU ARE A TRUE PATRIOT AND YOUR WORDS SHOULD BE A BUMPER STICKER.
Pecos Pete| 7.6.11 @ 5:16PM
Thanks. It was worth reading.
George S| 7.6.11 @ 6:10PM
Why bother with arguing over a debt ceiling when the Democrats never passed a budget? On its face it seem odd, but forcing the Republicans to "compromise" on the debt ceiling gives the Democrats the budget that could not stand at the voting booth.
Anne McElroy| 7.6.11 @ 9:02PM
Instead of letting the president call the shots, he should be hoisted on his own petard by congress.By funding only those items at the reduced levels (I'm talking ALL agencies and spending items, not just entitlements) they have been talking about to levels that would be fiscally responsible. At that point the congress can just sit back as the white house fumes and fusses. They can then point out that since the president has NOT submitted a budget, and NO spending plans have been submitted, they are simply performing the fiduciary responsibility they have been elected to perform. If the president has different ideas as to where the money should go he should submit his budget to congress! Now wouldn't that be something to see.
Nite| 7.6.11 @ 11:12PM
Obama thinks he is a King and can do as he wants. He simply rules by executive order. If he tries increasing the debt ceiling on his own orders, he is breaking the 4th amendment, which essentially says that the President can not borrow money (for the country), without the approval of Congress. If Obama wants to do something stupid like that, it is likely to cost him the election. Voters are getting real tired of his executive orders. He is abusive in that regard.
weddingdress | 7.7.11 @ 5:15AM
Why bother with arguing over a debt ceiling when the Democrats never passed a budget? On its face it seem odd, but forcing the Republicans to "compromise" on the debt ceiling gives the Democrats the budget that could not stand at the voting booth.
Tenn Slim| 7.7.11 @ 9:04AM
Opine
The Article/Constitution does nothing more than say the Pres accepts the validity of the debt of the Republic. NOWHERE does it say we must and shall repay.
Pres O does not have the Andrew Jackson guts to take on the 14 trillion dollar debt responsibility alone. He would and will hang the debt on the US electorate first.
Semper FI
shipley130| 7.7.11 @ 2:00PM
Not all the 14 trillion dollars are due to pensions or rebellion/insurrection, so what happens there?
shipley130| 7.7.11 @ 2:03PM
As I understand it, we are not going to default on the debt, so a bunch of scare mongering, for nothing.
fwb| 7.7.11 @ 2:22PM
The Catch Phrase: "authorized by law"
Duh, ONLY CONGRESS CAN "AUTHORIZED BY LAW"
The pidly President has roughly ten powers all listed in Article II of the Constitution. He ain't all powerful constitutionally speaking although the Congress and the Courts have totally failed the People in controlling out of control Presidents. And We the People have failed ourselves in controlling the kind of corrupt people we allow to work for us in government.
Constitutionally speaking, The President doesn't have ANYTHING to do with budgets and spending and debts. These are in the purview of Congress (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1).
So the 14th does nothing for the President. Congress would have to pass a law concerning the so-called debt ceiling in order for the 14th to come into play.
Please do not forget Congress is the President's boss. If you question this, rethink who can fire whom.
astonerii| 7.8.11 @ 12:01AM
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred by payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
Authorized by law. Thus, no, he cannot just keep paying bills. The debt must be authorized by law. The only way he could keep paying the bills is if the federal government has the absolute power to simply print money and make payments that way. I would imagine that would not really assuage a crisis at all.
Rich Fisher| 7.8.11 @ 4:38PM
Why is it that everyone assumes that if the budget ceiling is not raised we will default on the National Debt? Paying that bill should be our top priority. Everyone acts as if we couldn't cut spending in other areas, even if only temporarily, to get by. Isn't that what a normal family does? Prioritize spending and then cut what isn't absolutely essential to make the budget balance? This is a ridiculous ploy by the Liberals and the State Controlled Media to convince us that without an increase in the debt ceiling we would just naturally choose to default on the National Debt. Not so. We would pay that and find other places to make cuts.
summer| 7.10.11 @ 9:41PM
Therefor by the 14 Amendment, Section 4, Line 1, only Congress can control the validity of debt.
http://www.ainibag.com
William Zmistowski, Jr| 7.14.11 @ 1:05PM
Defaulting on the Ntl. debt th is month is not nearly as catastrophic as the possibility of bankrupting our country forever.
We are collectively pathetic people. We have spent all our own money. Now spending someone elses money - our children's and grandchildrens' and future generations'. We are selfishly playing with the fate of future generations - absolutely disgusting.