# News Should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment and bypass Congress?

1. Jul 21, 2011

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
If Congress fails to act, should Obama follow the advice of Bill Clinton?

http://blogs.forbes.com/jerrybowyer/2011/07/20/four-questions-for-obamas-14th-amendment-courtiers/

I would want to spend time with legal experts to gain clarification, but yes, if it seems that he can legally do this, it seems to me a better option than allowing the tea party to destroy the full faith and credit of the US. In fact, I would argue that in a crisis Obama is required to do this in the interest of national security. The tea party cannot be allowed to ruin a highly fragile and struggling economy. We cannot allow a 30% voting block to break us due to some wildly misguided ideology.

Recall that these are many of the same folks [Republicans] who would have allowed global economic collapse back in 2008, and voted against the bank bailouts.

Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
2. Jul 21, 2011

### Jack21222

I think he should certainly try, even if only to force the courts to make a ruling. It's a fairly hairy legal issue if you ask me, but I am not a lawyer. I'd like the courts to clear it up one way or another.

3. Jul 21, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

As bad as I think it is for him to violate federal law regarding the regulation of nuclear power, I think it is much much worse to directly violate the Constitution itself. I can't think of a worse abuse of Presidential power than to usurp the legislative branch.

Yeah, I'm against that.
You present it as if the two choices are to violate the constitution or allow the country to default. There's a third option, of course...

Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
4. Jul 21, 2011

### mege

That 'wildly guided ideology' increased our country's spending by 25% over the past few years?

Who's crisis is this really?

5. Jul 21, 2011

### Jack21222

It could be argued that NOT ignoring Congress would ALSO be directly violating the Constitution itself, namely the 14th amendment. That's what this thread is about. I don't see a problem with letting the courts decide.

6. Jul 21, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

I have yet to see anyone make an argument that Obama can, much less must invoke the 14th Amendment and overrule Congress here. If you have one, I'd be most interested in hearing it.

This guy helped teach Obama Constitutional law and says that this would be a clear violation and Obama knows it:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/14th-amendment-a-debt-ceiling-back-up-plan.html

Don't make the mistake of believing that two wrongs make a right: that if it is a violation of the Constitution for Congress to default on the debt that that means Obama would be upholding the Constitution to seize that power from them. It doesn't work that way.

Last edited: Jul 21, 2011
7. Jul 22, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

Also:
I'm not sure that's one of the options, but I'm quite certain it isn't the only option. The courts don't pick their cases and can't just step in if Obama issues an illegal executive order. If Obama violates the Constitution here, Congress can probably sue him, but they can also impeach him.

8. Jul 22, 2011

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Politically, it looks like a brilliant plan. It would let him strong-arm the opposition, but still have a way out if they call his bluff. And maybe even let the executive branch wrest some power from the legislative branch if you can spin it so it's too politically dangerous to challenge the maneuver.

Of course, I don't like playing politics.

9. Jul 22, 2011

### turbo

If Congress does not want to spend X amount of dollars, they should not appropriate those dollars nor vote to spend them. If they want to hand Obama a "defeat" based on their own reckless spending, they should not draw a line in the sand regarding the 14th amendment, since they were responsible for that spending. I can't see why there is a "debt-limit" since Congress decides what they want to spend money on every single year. If they have agreed to spend that money and have agreed how to apportion it, why is it necessary to keep authorizing higher and higher debt limits? It seems like a childish game, at best.

10. Jul 22, 2011

### StevieTNZ

- From Brave New Economy
http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118004418.html

Not increasing the debt limit, and defaulting would really stuff up all economies in the world. We'll be going backwards again.

11. Jul 22, 2011

### BobG

I agree with turbo in spirit. How do you pass a budget that sends you over the debt limit and then claim the power to prevent the US from exceeding the debt limit? This is a lame game. It doesn't pass the common sense test.

I think the idea of invoking the 14th Amendment is absurd, though. Talk about taking a comment out of context.

The intent of this clause was to deny the validity of any debts the Confederacy ran up to foreign countries or American businesses, individuals, etc.

In essence, it says, "Debts on this side of the line are valid - debts on that side are not."

12. Jul 22, 2011

### Jack21222

Is this a joke? Bill Clinton makes this argument. There's a link that says so in the very first post in this thread. Did you seriously not bother reading to see what the thread was about before responding?

13. Jul 22, 2011

### WhoWee

If the election last fall didn't change the persons in the House from a Democrat majority to a Republican majority - I would agree with you. This House leadership is trying to undo the damage caused by the Nancy Pelosi lead House. Unfortunately, Harry Reid still controls the Senate and even though he was against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 he is now for raising it - I need a score card to keep track.

However, I believe there is a reasonable solution. We should add up all of the future unfunded spending commitments now in place and add those to the accumulated deficit and let President Obama (sign his name to and) agree to increase the debt ceiling to that number. He wants a BIG DEAL - they should give him one.

14. Jul 22, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

Did you? Clinton made no such argument. 'I would do it' (paraphrase) is not an argument that it is constitutional. Heck, what was implied by his statement implies to me is 'i don't know or care.'

And considering his personal experience, he may have a different perspective on if one should mind being impeached.

15. Jul 22, 2011

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined
http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-whether-or-not-nati,20977/

Actually, I thought they were debating over the best way to ruin the economy.

A chronic deficit leads to greater indebtedness, which is the opposite of prosperity.

It's mindboggling that the federal debt should exceed the annual GDP.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/pdf/gdp4q10_adv.pdf (2010 GDP ~$14.6 to$14.9 trillion - depending on source)

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

16. Jul 22, 2011

### WhoWee

17. Jul 22, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

You are absolutely correct that Congress would at least be contradicting itself by passing laws to fund things, then later failing to approve release of the money. That kind of contradiction comes with a government that changes hands every now and then: the party that passed those spending laws is now no longer in power and the party in power doesn't want to do that spending.

But of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is OK for Obama to violate separation of powers by usurping Congress's authority.

18. Jul 22, 2011

### BobG

And the logic is that if you don't agree with a law legally passed by Congress, you don't have to abide by it?

Doesn't matter which party is in the majority - a law or bill passed by Congress is a law or bill passed by Congress. The solution is to repeal the bill legally; not play asinine games.

19. Jul 22, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

I agree with you and turbo that the debt ceiling game is silly, but again, both sides are playing. I'd even say the democrats started this round by passing a budget when the money didn't exist to fund it. All republicans are doing here is not passing a new law to bail the democrats out of their contradiction.

20. Jul 22, 2011

### WhoWee

Perhaps the Congress that spent the money should have made sure the funds were available - before passing the Billl(s)? Again, we should be looking at the cost of ALL unfunded liabilities NOW and charting a course to either find funding or eliminating the obligations - anything else (I agree) is an asinine game.