"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."
14th Amendment, US Constitution
____________
14th Amendment, US Constitution
____________
Now, I'm no lawyer, which means that I generally take such statements at face value and have no knowledge of what pretzels they've been twisted into by various courts in various cases, but it seems to me that if congress can't question the validity of our public debt, then congress can't refuse to pay it or more importantly say it's only valid under a certain amount authorized by Congress after they've already deemed it legal. What do you think?
I hate to bring up the constitution at a time when the Tea Bag Patriots are pretending to worship it while claiming that those who would like to actually conform to it are "shredding it" but the situation is getting serious.
Of course this whole controversy is about "taking down" the president we elected by a good margin and replacing him with a Tea Party Republican of their choice hell bent not on reducing the debt, but killing Social Security, Medicare, all forms of welfare and any protection for the public against the health insurance cartel -- and all to make sure people like me can put an extra tank of fuel into the yacht every now and then thus creating jobs in the Bahamas and Taiwan.
After all they raised the debt ceiling every year a Republican was in office since the beginning of the Reagan administration and authorized Bush's massive debt explosion like a well disciplined private army. Remember when "debt doesn't matter" was the slogan? No? Well I do.
"Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments"says Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and he'd also be impeached if he invalidated the debt ceiling based on the 14th amendment, says Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) Talk about a poker player with a 'tell.' Might as well lay the cards on the table.
It's all about impeachment and all about finding some flimsy excuse or forcing the president into a position where they will impeach him if he does and impeach him if he doesn't. No more revolting, I guess than impeaching one for asking his secretary not to tell his wife he was having an affair. Talk about insurrection and rebellion! No sooner did we lose the Cold War gravy train then we embarked on the Cold Secession.
President Clinton of course told us recently that he wouldn't hesitate to use the 14th to raise the debt ceiling and "force the courts to stop me." You'll remember of course the attempts to impeach him on any pretext and how the talk of the "failure of the Clinton Presidency" preceded the Clinton Presidency and how he would certainly be a one term president and how his tax policies would bankrupt the economy. They hope you won't remember, of course because we're hearing the same damned bullshit again.
"I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”said Bill Clinton to The National Memo last week. No wonder slimy things like the Newt are challenging the constitutional basis for even having a Supreme Court.
Meanwhile that 3% extra tax cut I get on anything I earn over $250,000 is going to prompt me to create jobs for those struggling people now paying for the longest, most expensive wars in American history while losing their houses, jobs, medical insurance waiting for the Voodoo to kick in and save us all -- and all will be fine just in time for a Tea Party president. I can feel it in my bones.
Afternoon Update: A hat tip to Shaw at Progressive Eruptions for this graph that debunks another GOP mendacity:
The Obama administration has exercised remarkable spending restraint in accomplishing a lot, in contrast to the Bush years of gross mismanagement and fiscal profligacy.
Captain,
ReplyDeleteI am with you 1,000 percent. It makes my cephalopod blood boil. BOIL! Of course, invoking the 14th amendment would probably trigger a constitutional crisis, but I don't give a shit. Bring it on, I say.
I am sure President Obama is keenly aware of his place in history, which may matter more to him than his standing in the polls. Although I can't imagine a reasonable person blaming him for taking desperate action to save the economy ( ... I take that back, yes I can ...), history will surely vindicate him.
In any event, i would hope a constitutional crisis would trigger an angry backlash from our side of the partisan divide that could translate into an avalanche of votes.
For my part, I have been thinking of grassroots actions that might make a difference. I have given up on writing to congress critters. The results are predictable no matter who you contact because each will vote their respective party line.
As a blogger, I have been thinking of starting boycott lists for the purpose of keeping corporate money out of the election process. IOW, if a company backs a partisan think tank, PAC, or party line, the idea is to boycott their products ... hit them in the pocketbook where it hurts.
Another idea: Recruit and train flocks on incontinent birds to leave chalk trails and give the GOP a Hitchcock moment.
Any other ideas?
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteI think those two Republipols with their duet "he'll be impeached if he does or doesn't" say it all: poor O'Bummer might as well be hanged for stealing a horse instead of a chicken. I don't know the history of interpretation for the 14th either, but the language is clear: if you contract debts in Uncle Sam's name, you've got to pay them, not pretend they don't exist or refuse because you don't like the person who's asking you to pay them.
I don't doubt that the GOP would try to impeach the president over this, but I also think the polls show overwhelming support for the so-called "balanced solution" he has been promoting. (Except the 'Baggery, who spend all their waking hours wishing the chief executive into a corn field so they can usher in Michele Bachmann or some other darling of their Tea Nation.)
Impeachment would go nowhere beyond the House, and the president could probably even use it as a rallying point for his re-election: "give me a congress that won't try to fire me for following the constitution I swore to uphold, just to stop them from destroying the republic." We have a precedent: impeachment really didn't hurt Bill Clinton even though it was (while ridiculous) over his bad personal conduct, mostly, and I don't see how Obama getting the same treatment for doing something in the country's best interest would work out worse for him than it did for Clinton.
I've been pretty down on the citizenry lately, as you can see from my other comments, but in truth, I think on really big issues, we sometimes get it right on general, easily accessible grounds. Obama sounds "reasonable" and calm to most people, and the GOP doesn't sound that way, so I think he wins this one. Of course, if we suffer many of the dire economic consequences people have been talking about (which could happen even if the 14th is invoked – what if the markets don't trust that as a solid solution?), we're equally ruined no matter what happens with President Obama.
The President should use his authority (I believe he has the authority) to raise the debt ceiling, based on the 14th amendment, and the powers he has by that amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans have proven to be irresponsible, to be seriously considered in this decision.
The 14th amendment has never been applied in this context by any president so there is no precedent and no jurisprudence analyzing what specific authority Section 4 of the XIV amendment confers on the president with regards to the pubic debt.
ReplyDeleteConstruction, i.e. the circumstances that are being addressed in a provision of the U.S. Constitution is of significance in applying the provision. Remember the ongoing issue of Scalia and Thomas being strict constructionist, insisting on interpreting the Constitution in terms of how the provision was applied at its inception.
In this instance, it is significant that the 14th is one of the Reconstruction amendments. The totality of Section 4 reads: 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 intent at the time was to declare that the US was not going to pay any debts incurred by the Confederacy, which had borrowed money from Egland and France to help in its war effort. So Section 4 confirmed that all U.S. public debt authorized by Congress was legit and declared that neither the U.S. nor any state would be responsible for paying any debts incurred by the Confederacy for the war or the loss of slaves.
Clinton is a lot more certain than some other constitutional scholars in his belief that the 14th amendment allows Obama to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. It may be possible but there is certainly the risk that doing so will provide the Republcans with the excuse to begin impeachment proceedings. I don't know if Obama has as much teflon coating as Bill Clinton and the charges may stick. Even if there is no impeachment effort, there will likely be a challenge in the courts as to the president's authority to act under the 14th amendment. Given the current conservative court and the push for strict constructionism (generally a 5 to 4 split in favor of strict constructionism), it would likely be an uphill battle for the President and he could fare like Sisyphus and find himslef unable to push his rock all the way uphill.
I'm not saying that he shouldn't or that he should use the possible authority of the 14th amendment, just laying out the issues. The media headlines oversimplify the issues as they generallydo when it comes to the law, particualrly the Constitution. In law there really is no such thing as a simple "yes" or "no" when the question is, can I legally do that? It depends...
Sheria:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wikipedia, which is as much education in the Law as I have, "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."
I haven't wased through that one, but is voiding a bond the same as ignoring the obligation it conveys? I mean, I have some bills I'd rather not pay. . . It would certainly create jobs if I didn't.
The righty ranters in other blogs wherein I posted this tell me that Clinton is wrong, but then they said he was wrong about raising taxes and that it would destroy the economy. Anyone who has bet on Bill has usually done well.
But considering the Court, who knows what they might come up with after the drinking of enough tea. It's all about humiliating Obama and it can be seen in the rhetoric telling us it's "his economy" which began only weeks into his term. Impeachment was discussed in those same weeks and they've been looking for something since before he took the oath. In fact some were suggesting removing him becuase the oath wasn't read properly -- but I don't have to tell you what this is all about or where it comes from. They will bring down the government and civilization itself if it means riding this upstart out of Washington on a rail.
If the polls I hear about on TV are correct, nearly 3/4 of the public want the ceiling raised and want Social Security and Medicare preserved. A good majority blame the REpublicans for the recession as well, so my only remaining hope is that they will remember this in November 2012, even if there's a lot of smoke and celebrity scandal and the current insurgency will end in that year - the end of an error.
The chart you posted should be thrust in front of the faces of every politician in Washington. Facts are stubborn things, but they are completely ignored in Foggy Bottom.
ReplyDeleteFacts don't vote. Facts don't make huge campaign donations or promises of lucrative jobs and perks.
ReplyDeleteI've seen the reference, Captain, to the Perry case but I haven't read the case and I refrain from analysis of opinions which I haven't read.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the 14th provides a real solution because the moment the Pres. invoked it, the Repubs would start impeachment proceedings and file with the court to stay the Pres' hand. Then there would be litigation and impeachment hearings until elections 2012. Either impeachment proceedings or court action alone will stay execution of the Pres' authority under the 14th while the legality of the action is resolved. For the life of me I can't figure out why Dems are now pushing this idea when they know that it still won't resolve the debt ceiling crisis. There are a whole lot of lawyers in Washington and they know that the Pres can't really effect the raising of the debt ceiling immediately via the 14th.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteI think the call for the 14th might be a bit of strategery on the congressional Democrats' part – you're probably right about the most likely outcomes (court delays or impeachment), but at the same time, there's the politics of the thing. I believe the saner GOPers know that if they file suit and/or impeach, either course may well end up generating sympathy for the president and his party. So the call may be intended to frighten the Republicans into backing down. Still, my guess is that the Tea Partiers are so stupid and bellicose that nothing will work against them. This situation is getting more serious by the minute.
Dino:
ReplyDelete"Still, my guess is that the Tea Partiers are so stupid and bellicose that nothing will work against them"
Had lunch yesterday with some died in the wool Republican Reprobates and was pleased at their distaste for this bit of comic opera and see it as a hostage situation.
I think Dickens is right and knaves always overreach themselves and so I hope they keep it up.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteUpon further reading, I don't think that case applies, but if Mr. Clinton is advising the president to use the 14th, it's probably a bluff. You can't expect a teatwit to actually read the Constitution with all those big words and no pictures.
I'm sure you're right about the saner Republicans and I think they're showing signs of "Dr. Frankenstein's Remorse" but it's possible that both sides are playing games here - at our expense. Perhaps the Dems would like the teatraitors to keep yelling about impeachment, thinking that this kind of thing will generate sympathy, as Dino says, or at least exhaust the public's patience. I think that patience is running out already but I hope that anger isn't over with and forgotten by election time.
Polls seem to show that a good majority of voters blames the Republicans for our situation and a huge majority does not want to sacrifice, or privatize or curtain Medicare of Social Security and if they keep that up, they'll certainly lose Florida at the very least. So I hope they keep it up!
Darlene,
ReplyDeleteI didn't post that graphic actually. It was some unseen hand, or hands, or perhaps tentacles and I can't take credit for it.
Current polls may show 75 to 80% of the people in favor of this, that, or whatever; unfortunately opinion polls do not count as votes, and right wing politicians are infamous for spinning facts into fiction and claiming the opposite of this, that, or whatever. Too bad there are no provisions in the Constitution for holding a referendum.
ReplyDeleteWe exercise our franchise only on Election Day and have no voice in between … leaving us at the mercy of politicians until the next election cycle. And it takes nothing less than treason to remove a deadbeat from office.
Ahh, treason! Now there’s a thought:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Two-thirds majority?? See what I mean!! The system intended for us to suffer fools.
El Capitan and Darlene,
ReplyDeleteWho me? Blaming it on the tentacles, are you. It must have been our resident Limulus polyphemus who did it.
I do love that we have such a brilliant attorney amongst the rocks and seaweed of the Swash Zone. I can't count the times I've heard, "Isn't there a law...?" How fortunate for us we have Sheria here to inform us of whether there is a law and whether it applies.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sheria that regardless of whether the President might have a legal loophole to slip something through, it probably would not hold up and the better course of action is for him to continue to appeal to the American people and continue to try to work out an acceptable compromise although we know that is impossible with the Republithugs.