Political Animal
Blog
Extending the debt limit is necessary to pay the bills the country already owes. As Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley argued before there was a Democratic president, “Raising the debt limit is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. We cannot as a Congress pass spending bills and tax bills and then refuse to pay our bills. Refusing to raise the debt limit is like refusing to pay your credit card bill — after you’ve used your credit card.”
Now, of course, Republicans want to rewrite the rules and not pay our bills. There’s a credible debate underway as to whether the GOP even has a choice in the matter.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution seems to prevent the United States from refusing to pay its bills. The language reads, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” This constitutional provision, according to some legal scholars, offers President Obama a way out if congressional Republican decide they’d rather shoot the hostage: he can pursue the “14th Amendment Option” and simply pay our obligations anyway, debt ceiling be damned.
The subject came up briefly during yesterday’s White House Twitter Town Hall, with President Obama saying, “I don’t think we should even get to the constitutional issue. Congress has a responsibility to make sure we pay our bills.”
Left unsaid is what the president is prepared to do if Congress ignores its responsibility and refuses to pay our bills.
Constitutional experts can speak to this dispute with far more authority than I can, but it’s worth noting that the mere possibility is starting to cause a minor freak-out in Republican circles.
Later today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) will introduce a ‘sense of the Senate’ resolution that says the president does not have the authority to sidestep the debt ceiling, which is set to expire in August.
“I strongly disagree with those who suggest the president has the unilateral authority to put the American people in even great levels of debt,” Graham says in a statement. “Every time the debt ceiling has been raised it has been through an act of collaboration between the president and Congress. That is not only the right policy decision to make, but the correct political decision as well. We have a president, not a king. Our resolution puts the Senate on record that any debt-limit increase, today or in the future, should be passed by the Congress and signed by the President.”
Graham isn’t lying when he says, in the past, debt-ceiling increases have always been “an act of collaboration between the president and Congress.” What he neglected to mention, though, is that we’ve never had a party prepared to pursue default, on purpose, and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States before now.
It is, in other words, a new ballgame, which may require a new solution to prevent a deliberate, avoidable catastrophe.
What’s more, note that Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones feeling antsy — a House Republican this week raised the specter of presidential impeachment if Obama goes down this road.
In case this isn’t already obvious, it’s worth acknowledging why the GOP is panicking, and it has nothing to do with constitutional principles or separation of powers. The issue is one of leverage — if the “14th Amendment Option” (or, “Constitutional Option”) is legitimate, the Republican hostage strategy starts to crumble. There would be a built-in safety valve in the event talks collapse and the GOP decides to go through with the party’s threats.
In other words, right now, Republican leaders are saying, “Meet our demands or we’ll shoot the hostage.” If this constitutional work-around is a viable alternative, the president can say, “Never mind, I’ve found a way to save the hostage without you.”
Facebook
Twitter
SacSuxs on July 07, 2011 9:59 AM:
Why does this remind me of the scene from "Blazing Saddles"?
stevio on July 07, 2011 10:00 AM:
I say just do it and see what happens. Piss n the GOP. Why not, they're pissing on us...
Chuck on July 07, 2011 10:00 AM:
No doubt that the GOP will impeach Obama for invoking the 14th Amendment.
Must be a factor in why Obama is so wimpy on this issue.
stormskies on July 07, 2011 10:02 AM:
And if there was a Repiglican president, and this issue was no in reverse where the Democrats were doing what the Repiglicans are now doing, do any of us have any doubts what that Repiglican president would do relative to the 14th Amendment ?
c u n d gulag on July 07, 2011 10:03 AM:
Obama should say that there's a week to hammer out an ageement.
If there isn't one, he should say do what you want to me, but I'm doing this to save the US economy and the world from another depression/recession, and dare them to impeach him. He should say that if paying debts makes him a one term President, then so be it...
Then, he takes Medicare and SS off the table, and does what he has to do.*
Let them impeach him.
There's nothing that will guarantee his victory, and maybe a Democratic one, if the Republicans go to, AGAIN, impeach a Democratic President.
*Yeah, I'm a dreamer...
Gov't Mule on July 07, 2011 10:03 AM:
So much for original intent of the Constitution. Activism in the Republican parlance is only applicable to laws they don't like. The GOPocrisy is sickening. If the situation were reversed, a guarantee a Republican President would have already bypassed a Democratic Congress citing the 14th as his authority.
As you noted Steve, impeachment is a real possibility. I think this is a fight worth having because any debate on impeachment and a subsequent trial will only boost Obama.
I don't think it would be hard to argue that: the Constitution gave him this authority; that what the Republicans were doing was classic bad faith negotiation designed to put the country on the brink of default (best case scenario) or to crash the global economy which would make the Republican's actions treasonous. As a result, Obama was FORCED to invoke the 14th Amendment to save not just this country but the entire global market from collapsing. This was part of his oath while the Republicans undermined and violated their own oath.
JackD on July 07, 2011 10:06 AM:
What Graham and other Republicans ignore is that it isn't a matter of Obama being a "king"; it's a matter of his obeying the constitutional requirement. The borrowing is not new spending; it's paying for old spending by Congress not the President.
Ron Byers on July 07, 2011 10:07 AM:
I listened to the O'Donnell show last night. Chris Hayes had a pretty good guest from the administration. It is clear from what he said that Obama wants to enact a deficit reduction plan for the long term. If he gets what he wants he will use the Republicans as cover. If he doesn't he has the Constitutional Option in his hip pocket and he can use it to save the economy from Republican self-inflicted stupid.
Chuck on July 07, 2011 10:09 AM:
you guys are right: the impeachment fight would ultimately be a great thing.
but they definitely will go down that road. or, at the very least, some sort of committee hearings to start it.
but the real problem is that it is sort of late to start invoking that option. not sure why Obama hasnt acknowledged it as a possibility. just like I am not sure why harry reid doesn't occasionally threaten to blow up the filibuster.
j on July 07, 2011 10:10 AM:
I have read the 14th amendment, but no-where can I find anything that says the congress shall be able to limit which of our bills we pay.
3reddogs on July 07, 2011 10:14 AM:
@JackD
You've got it exactly right. The spending has already taken place and the debt has already been incurred. It seems to me our Founding Fathers may have been more worried about the executive branch not paying for Congress' spending and not the other way around but, either way, the 14th amendment is quite clear.
nick1936 on July 07, 2011 10:15 AM:
invoke the amendment if you are a true leader instead of acting like a wimp
Josef K on July 07, 2011 10:16 AM:
What’s more, note that Senate Republicans aren’t the only ones feeling antsy — a House Republican this week raised the specter of presidential impeachment if Obama goes down this road.
When I try to think of all the damage the GOP has done to the country in the 50-odd years, their reducing impeachment to little more than a common threat ranks near the top. That they're threatening over the President following the dictates of the US Constitution doesn't help.
At this point I'm finding myself actually hoping these talks will break-down, if only so the GOP looses its last vestige of creditability and the public, finally, sees them as they really are.
Richard Arnone on July 07, 2011 10:20 AM:
Nobody denies the validity of our debt. A debt can be valid and still be unpaid until funds are available. You can go to court and have a judge declare you claim is valid and payable but that does not put money automatically in your pocket.
The answer is still massive spending cuts! Then, and only then, will both parties, with the backing of the American citizens, come to an agreement on raising the debt limit.
Govt Skeptic on July 07, 2011 10:21 AM:
"Every time the debt ceiling has been raised it has been through an act of collaboration between the president and Congress."
Yes, and at some point in our history this was also true of:
1. Going to war
2. Spying on citizens
3. Lots of other things
Congress is a largely dysfunctional body at this point. It no longer pays the bills for the spending it authorizes. It has abdicated its Constitutional responsibility to declare/prevent war. It is essentially a side show that allows the behind-the-curtain action of handing our country over to the oligarchs.
Anyway, screw them. Obama should test their dedication to the "unitary executive" and just keep spending through August.
captcha: "1862 simply"
well done sir, well done.
Ron Byers on July 07, 2011 10:21 AM:
As to the impeachment talk, impeachement would insure Obama's reelection. A party only gets to pull that stunt once a generation. They took their best shot with Clinton and came a cropper. Unlike Clinton, which involved the remote possibility of Democratic support, no Democrat will be willing to convict.
By elevating the party to a more important position than the institution the Congressional Republicans have made it absurdly easy for Pelosi and Reid to rally the Democratic troops. Thank you Newt Gingrich.
My suggestion to Boehner and McConnell is to cut the best deal you can and save your fight for the next budget. Obama has outmanuvered you again.
Anonymous on July 07, 2011 10:25 AM:
Obama doesn't want the talks to break down, I'm pretty sure.
But his guys are working on a workaround in the event they do.
I say go for the 14th amendment option. Why not call the GOP's bluff and leave them with their false teeth hanging out?
How does one not read the 14th amendment, which was written in the wake of putting and end to very same ideas that the current GOP has resurrected (from birthright citizenship to equal access to voting).
Then let them run for office on overturning the 14th amendment -- disenfranchising the descendants of African American slaves -- and see how far they get.
T2 on July 07, 2011 10:28 AM:
House impeachment does not remove a president from office.....ask Bill Clinton.
So Obama can and should raise the option of invoking the 14th on this. No one can argue that the GOP is holding us hostage, and there is a fair to good chance that using the 14th would be Constitutional.
If the Senate goes GOP in 2012 and the House stays GOP, I'd expect an attempt at impeachment and removal from office - show that black guy who the real boss is. In other words, Obama might as well go for it.
G C on July 07, 2011 10:29 AM:
No doubt that the GOP will impeach Obama for invoking the 14th Amendment.
Surely Obama knows by now that the GOP will impeach him eventually no matter what he says or does.
bdop4 on July 07, 2011 10:30 AM:
Republicans freaking out is prima facie evidence that you are doing the RIGHT thing.
If they aren't freaking out, you know you're getting fucked.
It seems like it's been a long time since the repubs last freaked out.
Brenna on July 07, 2011 10:36 AM:
I've had doubts about the 14th amendment deal, but I'm starting to think it's a good idea.
Of course they'll impeach him, but think of the great discourse he can have while sitting there defending himself. He'd have a rapt audience (the world) and could bring to light what utter pigs the republicans really are.
It makes perfect sense that Miss Lindsay and the others are scared of this.
golack on July 07, 2011 10:50 AM:
By authorizing the spending, Congress has de facto authorized the increase in the debt ceiling. The republicans could have paid for their wars directly, but chose to borrow the money, and dump that expense on the returning soldiers and their families.
Heck, they should welcome the 14th amendment solution--so the freak out is for show. The could stop playing juvenile games and man up and pass the debt ceiling increase--or just throw tantrums. With the 14th amendment solution, they get to have their fits and then let daddy clean up their mess. Talk about spoiled brats...
Mnemosyne on July 07, 2011 10:52 AM:
Nobody denies the validity of our debt. A debt can be valid and still be unpaid until funds are available. You can go to court and have a judge declare you claim is valid and payable but that does not put money automatically in your pocket.
The answer is still massive spending cuts!
Good luck going in front of a judge and telling him that, in order to pay your debt, you will not increase your income -- say, by getting a second job -- and will in fact take steps that will decrease your income and that decreasing your income will magically resolve the debt. That's the Republican plan -- make sure the government receives even less money and the debt will magically resolve itself.
Rasputin22 on July 07, 2011 10:54 AM:
There is absolutely no political downside to Obama's invoking the 14th Amendment and acting unilaterally - provided that he sufficiently educates the public as to the catatrophic consequences of America's default on its financial obligations. Impeachment, if it happens, will fail, and will blow back on the Republicans as it did with Clinton.
Obama needs to summon his inner Dirty Harry.
Peter C on July 07, 2011 11:16 AM:
Let them go through impeachment again, dangit! Can they win it in the Senate??? The impeachment fear is BOGUS. Yes, it will be a stupid waste of time, but it will show that Republicans are irresponsible whiny babies who aren't fit to govern (as if we didn't have heaps of evidence about that already). The point is, we can't seem to stop them from being whiny time-wasting babies anyway. They've stopped Congress from doing ANYTHING this year, by winning the House.
The threat of impeachment didn't stop Bush from breaking the law to gain power; it shouldn't stop Obama from averting an economic melt-down that THE REPUBLICANS WANT.
Walker on July 07, 2011 11:23 AM:
Conviction of impeachment requires 2/3 vote in the Senate. Impeachment threats are hollow.
Kevin on July 07, 2011 11:24 AM:
It seems like they could try to impeach Obama no matter what happens for violating the direction of Congress. Congress has 1) directed Obama to spend a certain amount on programs it authorized, and 2) limited the amount of debt available to fulfill (1), without providing sufficient revenue to fulfill (1). So either Obama breaks the law on the debt ceiling or breaks the law to fund programs initiated by Congress.
Marko on July 07, 2011 11:24 AM:
I'd rather take the 14th than see Medicare & Social Security get scrapped at the hands of the GOP. Go for the 14th, then let the tax cuts on the rich expire. Debt crisis solved.
DRF on July 07, 2011 11:33 AM:
I hate to say it, but from a legal perspective, the Republicans have a point--the Administration is obligated to pay the government's debts and at the same time it is subject to the existing debt ceiling. This doesn't mean that the President can ignore either obligation; it does force him to reduce spending in order to comply with the debt ceiling.
Obviously, this is an absolutely terrible way to create policy--spending reductions should be negotiated out along with revenue/tax increases and a debt ceiling increase. However, since the Republicans seem determined to simply force expenditure reductions, my suggestion would be that the President exercise his discretion to reduce expenditures in those states whose Congressional delegations are opposed to any compromise solution.
Walker on July 07, 2011 11:44 AM:
This doesn't mean that the President can ignore either obligation; it does force him to reduce spending in order to comply with the debt ceiling.
They also passed a budget and Obama is required to support that. So there is a contradiction between laws. The argument then is how the contradiction must be resolved. Because it is not immediately clear that the debt ceiling law takes precedence over the budget (and in fact, the argument is that it does not).
The other option floating around is, if not the 14th amendment, then Obama gets to personally pick what is defunded. Like say all defense contractors. Or any pork projects to any Republican district. Or anything to a
But one of the two (14th amendment, picking what to defund) has to happen.
zmulls on July 07, 2011 11:47 AM:
The 14th Amendment argument has some solidity to it. If the GOP argues that the President can't borrow more money without Congressional approval...
...POTUS says that "But you already gave me the approval. You authorized us to spend $X and to only bring in $Y -- so to faithfully execute *YOUR* budget I had to borrow more money. Spend less money and I'll borrow less. But both houses of Congress have to agree -- *and* I have to agree. Dude."
zmulls on July 07, 2011 11:49 AM:
@DRF "it does force him to reduce spending in order to comply with the debt ceiling."
I have to disagree with that from a legal perspective. The President does not have the authority to reduce spending -- that's clearly Congress' domain, and the President either agrees or vetoes. But Congress says how much should be spent.
Assuming the President can decide to reduce spending where he pleases is the equivalent of a line-item veto. IMHO.
kevo on July 07, 2011 12:07 PM:
As children we learn to play. As we learn what ever play we're involved with, we quickly learn the value of the rules, and who to trust to adhere to the rules, and who to mistrust because they don't care for the rules unless the rules work their way!
The former we continue to play with, trust, and rely upon to help make community when adulthood is reached.
The latter we stop inviting to the play, work to avoid, and think of as losers because they conveniently lie, steal and cheat themselves to the top, especially if they discover the rules aren't in their favor.
H E L L O Republicans!
I am running out of descriptors for the Twits who are trying to impose their willfulness upon us all! -Kevo
TCinLA on July 07, 2011 12:25 PM:
Forget the 14th Amendment option, let's bring out the Black Helicopter Option and start rounding these traitors up. I'm sure we can find lots of volunteers to pry their guns from their cold dead hands.
SSS on July 07, 2011 12:29 PM:
@JackD and others; you are correct and Graham is wrong. Using this option wouldn't allow the President to create new debt, it would allow him to pay for the debt Congress already authorized.
But also, I think the President's reluctance to use this option now is revealing. I think it shows that he really does want all these spending cut "concessions" he's making in this deal, and is looking for Republican cover on them. It doesn't seem that he ever intends to address what he has already admitted was a mistake - failing to adequately address the housing and job problems.
Joe Friday on July 07, 2011 12:54 PM:
DRF,
I hate to say it, but from a legal perspective, the Republicans have a point--the Administration is obligated to pay the government's debts and at the same time it is subject to the existing debt ceiling. This doesn't mean that the President can ignore either obligation; it does force him to reduce spending in order to comply with the debt ceiling.
Except the House Republicans overwhelmingly passed the Ryan plan which blows the current debt-ceiling to smithereens. They can't have it both ways.
As to impeachment, we already saw that movie.
JM917 on July 07, 2011 1:01 PM:
Yes, Obama IS outmaneuvering the Repugs. Right now he's bending over backwards in proposing a fix that looks like 85% budget cuts/15% tax increases, and daring them to reject it.
And when the Repugs (led by Cantor and Mitch-for-the-Rich) reject do it, Obama has set the stage for invoking the 14th Amendment and saying that those big concessions on revenue, so far outside the "comfort zone of my own party," are now off the table and he's doing his constitutional duty to protect the integrity of the full faith and credit of the United States.
That's the ground on which he can claim the high patriotic ground and finally start scaring the bejezus out of Middle America and global markets.
And then the Repug House impeaches him? Go ahead, make our day! Not even a majority in the Senate will vote to convict him (well, maybe Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman); it takes 2/3 to convict.
I'll go out on a limb and say that seals the doom of the Repugs in 2012--both for the presidential race and for a hell of a lot of Congressional races.
Obama is luring the Repugs into a trap--just what David Brooks warned them about the other day.
Keep our nerves under control from now on out.
Sparko on July 07, 2011 1:24 PM:
The history of the 14th Amendment is exactly why it is applicable in this dispute. It was implemented to guarantee our public debt in case of factionally-driven defaults which could arise after, say, a civil war or the change-over in party dominance in the HOR (an acronym I will hold to as long as the GOP is the majority there!).
Flefsrosalyn on January 16, 2012 10:19 AM:
cheap dvd to zune to take huge discount dvd to zune at my estore