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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Bill Clinton suggested that if he were president, he would use the 14th Amendment to bypass the congressional debt limit, although he was uncertain about its constitutionality. Some participants in the discussion argue that this action could be justified to prevent economic collapse, while others emphasize that it would violate the Constitution by overstepping presidential authority. Legal experts, including Laurence Tribe, assert that only Congress has the power to manage U.S. debt, and any presidential attempt to act unilaterally would be unconstitutional. The debate highlights the tension between maintaining fiscal responsibility and the potential consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling. Ultimately, the conversation reflects deep concerns about the implications of either ignoring congressional authority or risking national economic stability.
  • #151
Lapidus said:
...
I'm from Europe, and as everbody else here, ...
Why must you attribute your opinion to the entire continent of Europe?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
There was a lot of talk on closing the overseas tax-shelters, but that talk seems to have quieted down somewhat. Pretax money funneled overseas is a crime against the taxpayers. Pretax money converted into commodities and shipped overseas is a crime against the taxpayers. Remember the plane loads of money sent to Iraq to create their new currency? What happened there? I believe the planes disappeared. Can't seem to find any facts on this. Was it the largest heist in history? Sorry to run off on some tangents here.
 
  • #153
hbjon said:
... Was it the largest heist in history? ...
That would be Medicare and Medicaid fraud, ongoing, year after year.
 
  • #154
mheslep said:
That's an unsourced line from Politico. I've seen no quotes to reporters, no public statements, and certainly nothing written down from the President, nor from Democratic leadership in Congress.

Okay. Here's what I found on CBS:

The deal on the table, as Mr. Obama laid it out, included more than $1 trillion in cuts to domestic and defense discretionary spending, as well as $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He said he asked for approximately $1.2 trillion in revenue increases that he said would have come from eliminating loopholes and deductions and engaging in broad tax reform, not hiking tax rates.

The deal, he said, called for less in tax increases than the deal worked out by the bipartisan "Gang of Six" negotiators, while including as much in discretionary savings. He said if the deal was unbalanced, "it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082266-503544.html
I'm sorry I don't have any transcripts available, but I hope this is within PF guidelines for sourcing.
 
  • #155
Newai said:
Okay. Here's what I found on CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082266-503544.html
I'm sorry I don't have any transcripts available, but I hope this is within PF guidelines for sourcing.
I did not mean to say that the previous source was outside guidelines, nor this one. Both are mainstream outlets. However both sources are reporting no more than unsourced hand waiving. They mean little or nothing. The President states Friday that "We have set forth a plan" on this subject. I say that's false. The US House passed the Ryan budget months ago, which was a detailed, quantifiable plan. More recently the US House passed Cut Cap and Balance. That was a plan. Those plans, being plans, are open for detailed criticism. There has been no such plan from the President or the Senate.

The above is particularly important is light of the history these negotiations to which Russ_W drew attention back in #89. (point 6)
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3419038&postcount=89
 
Last edited:
  • #156
I think that's a very strict call for documentation, even within the normal bread and butter discussions in this sub-forum. You asked for "specific cut proposals." I didn't expect that you would dismiss the mainstream report I offered, which I thought had followed your example in the quote at post #94. So, just what is acceptable to you, then? Because otherwise, I don't see how it's possible to answer your question.
 
  • #157
The President cannot legislate spending or taxation, so it is not surprising that he has not put out a detailed plan. He apparently put a lot of "entitlement" spending on the table in talks with the GOP, (incurring the rage of progressives and liberals) but the GOP turned him down because there were revenue-increases linked to the cuts. Please refer to the two David Brooks links earlier in the thread because I'm not going to dig them up again.

The GOP has one agenda. Kill Obama's chances for a second term. It doesn't matter to them if they panic the markets and the world's financial sector with the specter of default, IMO, and plunge the US into a much deeper recession. If they truly wanted to curb spending, there are myriad ways to cut without harming the elderly, disabled, and poor. If my senators (both Republican) go along with this blackmail, they can no longer count on my vote. Fiscal conservatism seems dead in the DC GOP and that is really sad. Where are the adults?
 
  • #158
Newai said:
I think that's a very strict call for documentation, even within the normal bread and butter discussions in this sub-forum. You asked for "specific cut proposals." I didn't expect that you would dismiss the mainstream report I offered, which I thought had followed your example in the quote at post #94. So, just what is acceptable to you, then? Because otherwise, I don't see how it's possible to answer your question.
The President submits a detailed budget proposal every year. Here is that budget from February, which includes the tax raises on upper incomes.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
In particular see table 3-3 here, where the deficit is increasing in 2020.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/econ_analyses.pdf

Usually, so does the Senate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #159
That's not a budget proposal.
 
  • #160
Debt ceiling raised= Your dollar worth less. Debt ceiling lowered= Your dollar worth more. If your holdings are in the Euro or other currencies, higher debt limit= higher Euro value because your currency is not being dilluted. All the gold has been purchased already with "good money", when everyone ran out of "good money", the "bad money" started competing for the gold reserves. Now, congress has to raise the limit on how much "bad money" is allowed to be in existence. Historically, bad money always chases out the good money. See Greshams Dynamic.
 
  • #161
Newai said:
That's not a budget proposal.
:confused: Of course it is:
From the President's Office of Management and Budget, we have the "Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012." It is not law (can not be as is), but is a document submitted to Congress.

In any case I am not inclined to chase red herrings. You have your example of a detailed plan.
 
  • #162
Oh it is. Never mind.
 
  • #163
Newai said:
Oh it is. Never mind.
Can we have an Emily Litella smiley with a link to "never mind"?
 
  • #164
ParticleGrl said:
I define a tax payer as someone who looks at their paycheck and says "oh, its lower than I thought because of taxes." Including only federal income tax is silly- why don't we only look at state taxes? After all- lots of the services most people use are funded by state taxes.

As to the temporary reduction in payroll taxes, it was a one-time cut designed to stimulate consumer demand in a recession. Keep in mind-tax cuts are the right-wing favored forms of economic stimulus.

I know quite a few people - who are tax payers - that don't fit your definition.

Let's be precise. It was a reduction in Social Security collections - a reduction of revenues to the Government - at a time of uncertainty as the President doesn't know if he can send out Social Security checks next month.

The workers experienced a reduction - but not their employers - the people who hire other people. Last, a person earning $25,000 per year kept about $10 per week?
 
  • #165
turbo-1 said:
Can we have an Emily Litella smiley with a link to "never mind"?

I have mild autism, so I miss things at times.
 
  • #166
hbjon said:
Debt ceiling raised= Your dollar worth less. Debt ceiling lowered= Your dollar worth more. If your holdings are in the Euro or other currencies, higher debt limit= higher Euro value because your currency is not being dilluted. All the gold has been purchased already with "good money", when everyone ran out of "good money", the "bad money" started competing for the gold reserves. Now, congress has to raise the limit on how much "bad money" is allowed to be in existence. Historically, bad money always chases out the good money. See Greshams Dynamic.

this is the part no one seems to get.

and this euro stuff just pisses me off. we end up having to support libya's war because europe has divested itself of military spending. they save huge amounts on their military budgets so that they can invest in social programs and lure our businesses there with lowered tax rates. our dollar is suffering because we are europe's military.

i'm at the point now where i think "defaulting" is the best thing that could happen to this country. we are complete idiots.
 
  • #167
Proton Soup said:
this is the part no one seems to get.

and this euro stuff just pisses me off. we end up having to support libya's war because europe has divested itself of military spending. they save huge amounts on their military budgets so that they can invest in social programs and lure our businesses there with lowered tax rates. our dollar is suffering because we are europe's military.

i'm at the point now where i think "defaulting" is the best thing that could happen to this country. we are complete idiots.

The EU has the same problems as the US when it comes to industry. Basically, banks/investors cash in on industry which has become uncompetitive, and build factories elsewhere, where China is -at the moment- the most striking example. If anything, blame banks, investors, open markets or even capitalism for that.

Note also that there is virtually no money coming into the EU. On the contrary, money goes into the US because of the deficits.

With an extreme trade deficit and an extreme government budget deficit, you cannot even state that that hurt the US in the last decennia. As it stands at the moment, China -for example- is giving goods away, essentially for free. They just hope that at some point the US will make good on its future promise to pay off their debt (which in the end must mean that goods are shipped back from the US).

Defaulting in some sense isn't a bad option because all the money which was borrowed or poured back into the US will evaporate. Which, again, means that banks would just have given away their money to the government, also that other countries would have given goods (oil/iPhones) for free to the US over the last decades.

But defaulting also implies that you blow up the US economy. And it stands to be seen how long it will take for the US economy to recover from that. It would be unclear for everyone if banks or the rest of the world would be inclined to invest in the US that fast, go for the same scheme, factories are not build easily, and this is not the fifties where the US was in some sense one of the very few producers of (high-end) goods in the world.

But, as it stands at the moment, there really is nobody else to blame except for your government. It is the same as a family which borrowed too much at the bank, and tries to borrow itself out of the position it put itself into. You can't blame a bank for providing cheap credit, which -rather silly- the majority of the Greeks now seem to do.

As far as I can see the US went to an unsustainable mode of borrowing decades ago. I am amazed that the US has a triple A rating, whereas Greece has not, but the debt per capita or as percentage of GDP is much larger (though I see different numbers on that). But a lot of people in the EU have been wondering about that for years.

Please note that I write all this with a tongue-in-cheek. I really believe it will work out one way or another since it a solution must be found. The US can borrow more, inflate, implement austerity measures, redeem only a part, or eventually work itself out of the debt position it put itself into; heck, they can also just nationalize all banks and close the borders. It will work out one way or another, but, sorry to say, my best guess is that the coming years will be those of recession, unemployment, and less consumption than before - an adjustment for a decade, or so.
But people have been saying that for years and it never happened, I am not an economist, so what do I know?

(Given all of the above, the most likely scenario still is that the US government will come to some agreement now, in the future fix the biggest parts of the deficits, or maybe even banks will start to help out the government, and stuff will just continue as normal.)

(And regarding the military issues. I agree somewhat, the EU needs a coherent army. Note that the EUs army is bigger than that of the US, but just not mobile because of the interests of all the different states. But also, people in the EU go into welfare when unemployment is high, in the US people just go into the military, and that is subsequently used. From an economic perspective, it is just a manner of hiding unemployment and stimulating the economy.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #168
Ivan Seeking said:
If Congress fails to act, should Obama follow the advice of Bill Clinton?

I just thought of something. As it seems that Congress will now find a solution on their own, if the President fails to sign the Bill (because it doesn't extend the ceiling past the 2012 election as he demanded) - the financial collapse of the US Government will be President Obama's fault - won't it?
 
  • #169
MarcoD said:
I am amazed that the US has a triple A rating, whereas Greece has not, but the debt per capita or as percentage of GDP is much larger (though I see different numbers on that). ...
Really? How would you judge the odds of getting your money back plus interest if you loaned money to the Greek government for ten years vs a loan to the US govt?
 
Last edited:
  • #170
mheslep said:
Really? How would you judge the odds of getting your money back plus interest if you loaned money to the Greek government for ten years vs the US govt?

Don't know. The Greeks didn't default on their debt so far - but I agree you have a point there, that country is a mess. But from an economic point it doesn't make sense. This is not about honor, or corruption, or something but just about money. At some point, for a country it will just be cheaper to default than to pay back, and then it will (while crying out loud that it was all the fault of the banks in the first place).

(And when it comes to ratings. I would be more worried about losing AAA too late, rather than too soon. If AAA continues indefinitely, there just is no reason for the US government to fix problems.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #171
MarcoD said:
Don't know. The Greeks didn't default on their debt so far - but I agree you have a point there. But from an economic point it doesn't make sense. This is not about honor or something but just about money. At some point, for a country it will just be cheaper to default than to pay back, and then it will.

There is a factor in Greece that can't be overlooked when discussing their economic problems - the underground economy.
http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf
 
  • #172
MarcoD said:
Don't know. The Greeks didn't default on their debt so far
Well Greek http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/us-eurozone-greece-programme-idUSTRE76L2PQ20110722" is a couple weeks away now.
Reuters said:
Since the selective default rating is expected to be a matter of days or a few weeks at the most, the enhanced collateral money is only a temporary measure.

- but I agree you have a point there, that country is a mess. But from an economic point it doesn't make sense...
Economically speaking the only thing that matters is the expectation of bond holders / buyers that they will be repaid in real terms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #173
Whatever your views may be, please call Speaker Boehner and tell his staff what you think.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please call or email [no texting, go to their website and use the contact page] your House representitive and Senators.

Speaker Boehner's office: (202) 225-0600

Your President is asking for your help.
 
  • #174
Ivan Seeking said:
Whatever your views may be, please call Speaker Boehner and tell his staff what you think.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please call or email [no texting, go to their website and use the contact page] your House representitive and Senators.

Speaker Boehner's office: (202) 225-0600

Your President is asking for your help.

I took the President's advice and sent an email to the Speaker. I recommended allowing President Obama to sign off on a $20Trillion debt limit as per the current trajectory - coupled with an equal amount of spending cuts over the same period. The President wants a big deal - give him one.
 
  • #175
WhoWee said:
I took the President's advice and sent an email to the Speaker. I recommended allowing President Obama to sign off on a $20Trillion debt limit as per the current trajectory - coupled with an equal amount of spending cuts over the same period. The President wants a big deal - give him one.

Do you mean debt ceiling increases equal to spending cuts, or eliminating the debt entirely?
 
  • #176
Ivan Seeking said:
Do you mean debt ceiling increases equal to spending cuts, or eliminating the debt entirely?

I think like a business owner. If my working capital requirements are $20Trillion over time and my current credit limit is maxed out at $14.3Trillion - I'm going to consult my long term plan to determine actual need - not ask for $16Trillion and come up 20% short. At the same time, as a business owner, I hope to increase revenues (and profits) to be less dependent on the credit line. As a business owner, my goal is to pay the credit line down to under 30% of the limit and maintain those balances. As a business owner, I also know my credit rating will improve if I control my reliance on credit and manage my balances and payments.

Accordingly, if the debt ceiling is approved to increase according to the current trajectory to $20Trillion - not allowed to exceed those levels - the real costs will be on the table.
The challenge is to curb the trajectory and increase of $5.7Trillion over the same period and establish a goal of cutting the same amount over the same period of time. It doesn't pay the debt down, but it would slow the growth of the debt.

There is a second element as well. Most discussions of spending to GDP target an ideal of 15% to 20% during good to normal economic times, but the trend is to 25% and has been marketed as necessary during recession. The compromise MIGHT be to allow the percentage of spending to GDP to vary given the economic trends. During recession, revenues drop which causes the percentage to rise - it's expected. During an economic boom time, revenues rise - but spending doesn't need to increase at the same rate - it's expected to drop.
 
  • #177
WhoWee said:
I think like a business owner. If my working capital requirements are $20Trillion over time and my current credit limit is maxed out at $14.3Trillion - I'm going to consult my long term plan to determine actual need - not ask for $16Trillion and come up 20% short. At the same time, as a business owner, I hope to increase revenues (and profits) to be less dependent on the credit line. As a business owner, my goal is to pay the credit line down to under 30% of the limit and maintain those balances. As a business owner, I also know my credit rating will improve if I control my reliance on credit and manage my balances and payments.

Accordingly, if the debt ceiling is approved to increase according to the current trajectory to $20Trillion - not allowed to exceed those levels - the real costs will be on the table.
The challenge is to curb the trajectory and increase of $5.7Trillion over the same period and establish a goal of cutting the same amount over the same period of time. It doesn't pay the debt down, but it would slow the growth of the debt.

There is a second element as well. Most discussions of spending to GDP target an ideal of 15% to 20% during good to normal economic times, but the trend is to 25% and has been marketed as necessary during recession. The compromise MIGHT be to allow the percentage of spending to GDP to vary given the economic trends. During recession, revenues drop which causes the percentage to rise - it's expected. During an economic boom time, revenues rise - but spending doesn't need to increase at the same rate - it's expected to drop.

On a first pass, I don't see that we have any disagreements. However I still believe in carefully targeted revenue increases in addition to expanding the tax base where appropriate.

We have had the lowest tax rates in decades and we can see how well it works.
 
  • #178
Ivan Seeking said:
We have had the lowest tax rates in decades and we can see how well it works.
A week later and it's still misinformation, Ivan:
Hurkyl said:
Ignoring the rest of the junk in your post, I'm going to ask what you mean by this and source it. This claim seems outright delusional claim when compared with a cursory glance at historical data -- i.e. the highest bracket of marginal income tax rate was at its maximum in 1944-1945 (94%), and the minimum occurred in 1988-1990 (28%), and has been in the 35%-40% range ever since.

(source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)
 
  • #180
russ_watters said:
A week later and it's still misinformation, Ivan:

I did mean the top marginal rate. My mistake. For three years they were lower.

The claim generally made must include the capital gains tax.

We can still see all the good it has done. Right? A big winner? We are at NEAR historic low tax rates and have been for decades. We have jobs, the debt is low, and we have a thriving economy, right? Or does that part matter?

There is no evidence that low taxes have done ANY good in the long term. Since we started lowing taxes under Reagan, the debt-to-GDP ratio has skyrocketed.
 
Last edited:
  • #181
russ_watters said:
Ivan Seeking said:
We have had the lowest tax rates in decades and we can see how well it works.

A week later and it's still misinformation, Ivan:

Sure seems like tax rates are lower to me. But I'm old. Top marginal rates when I was born were 91%. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html" --> 1959)

Perhaps the rates were lower when you were born?

topmarginaltaxes_vs_pctgdpdebt.jpg


But anyways, in the olden days, it looks as though people knew how to pay their bills, and get out of debt.

hmmm... Maybe a full blown depression is required to get peoples heads out of their Pablum bowls.

Where's Chuckie when you need him? Let's just blow it all up. :devil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsTzWBSDRas
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #182
OmCheeto said:
Sure seems like tax rates are lower to me. But I'm old. Top marginal rates when I was born were 91%. [SIZE="1

No, Russ is right. That little bump you see in 1988 makes all the difference.

And it is clear how well it has worked.
 
  • #183
Ivan Seeking said:
I did mean the top marginal rate. My mistake. For three years they were lower.

The claim generally made must include the capital gains tax.

We can still see all the good it has done. Right? A big winner? We are at NEAR historic lows and have been for decades, we have jobs, the debt is low, we have a thriving economy, right? Or does that part matter?

There is no evidence that low taxes have done ANY good in the long term. Since we started lowing taxes under Reagan, the debt-to-GDP ratio has skyrocketed.

It's never that simple - is it? Investment tax credits were used to make acquisitions instead of buying new equipment. Jimmy Carter and Congress tried to help people buy houses and instead unleashed Wall Street traders onto unsophisticated savings and loan executives. After that bailout - Congress doubles down for an even bigger bubble - that still isn't rectified. Bill Clinton tried to grow the economy with NAFTA - and it opened the floodgates for jobs to leave the US. Clinton also made it possible for futures trading to expand and morph into an unregulated derivative market that (still) threatens world financial markets 3 years after the bailout. We need to consider the growth of Government in the background from 1947 until current. George Bush reacted to 9/11 with a huge expansion of government and war spending - that still continues (even if all of the troops are retracted private contractors remain). President Obama gave an apology tour and encouraged people to stanfd up for themselves in the ME - and now we're in another war in Libya and the future political structure of Egypt is unknown. President Obama recently submitted a budget that was presented as responsible and necessary - yet it would have added an additional $10Trillion to the national debt - fortunately it was voted down 97-0.

There are always unintended consequences with major legislation. Does anyone think their 401K will gain in value if capital gains taxes are increased - or will it trigger a sell-off? Actually, WHEN interest rates rise - it may trigger a sell-off - chase the money back into CD's where it should have stayed for many small investors that were chased into the market by low interest rates.
 
  • #185
Ivan Seeking said:
I did mean the top marginal rate. My mistake. For three years they were lower.

The claim generally made must include the capital gains tax.

We can still see all the good it has done. Right? A big winner? We are at NEAR historic low tax rates and have been for decades. We have jobs, the debt is low, and we have a thriving economy, right? Or does that part matter?

There is no evidence that low taxes have done ANY good in the long term. Since we started lowing taxes under Reagan, the debt-to-GDP ratio has skyrocketed.

The federal income has remained steady at that 18-20% of GDP since about WW2. Even when the top marginal rate fluxuates - the total government income has remained pretty consistent. So when the income has remained the same (despite tax changes) - what is the other variable which should be accounted for that is adding to our debt?
 
  • #186
Ivan Seeking said:
And it is clear how well it has worked.
If you blame the low rates for the current recession, do you also give them credit for getting us out of the 1970s doldrums and enabling the prosperity of the 1990s?
 
  • #187
OmCheeto said:
Sure seems like tax rates are lower to me. But I'm old. Top marginal rates when I was born were 91%. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html" --> 1959)

Perhaps the rates were lower when you were born?

topmarginaltaxes_vs_pctgdpdebt.jpg


But anyways, in the olden days, it looks as though people knew how to pay their bills, and get out of debt.



No, not quite - at least not from your graph. The graph for the debt shows debt as a percentage of GDP. In the olden days, we used inflation to make it feel like the debt was going down. You have to go back before the 30's to find a time when the government knew how to pay its bills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #189
  • #190
WhoWee said:
Apparently, both James Clyburn and John Larson want the President to do an end run with the 14th Amendment. Eliot Engel has a press conference planned for today - to urge him on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ml?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|81676

IMO - if the Dems block legislation and the President uses the 14th as a result - he will be Impeached.

So what?

We've had two actual impeachments. The motivation for both was "We don't like you!". And then the House 'found' some technicality to justify it. If the House wanted to impeach Obama, they could surely find some grounds to justify it.

In the end, the grounds are irrelevant. If enough Senators don't like the President, he gets impeached. If too few Senators dislike the President, he doesn't get impeached. Very few Senators will base their vote on whether they think the President committed the act he was accused of. (Pres Johnson clearly fired the Secretary of War, a position that requires Senate approval for hiring; Pres Clinton did lie about Monica Lewinsky by any standard definition of lying.)

In the only instance where the grounds were truly significant enough to warrant impeachment, the President resigned.

Actually, if using the 14th Amendment clause is the concern, the House should consider what the Senate would do with an impeachment before bringing the charges. If the Senate 'acquits' the President, then impeachment effectively establishes the 14th Amendment clause as a valid way for the President to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval.

This is an issue that would be better to take to the US Supreme Court somehow to eliminate the chance any future President could use this option.
 
  • #191
This whole circus is so disappointing. Congress voted on spending bills, appropriated money, and ran up debt. There should be no debt limit at all. If Congress would stop spending money like it was free, we could reduce deficits, and ultimately reduce debt.

We don't need a military budget larger than the rest of the world combined. We don't need many hundreds of foreign bases (which result in transfer of money from the American taxpayer to the countries that host the bases). We don't need all the carrier groups that we have currently, unless our political leaders expect to start more air-wars. We certainly don't need to subsidize energy companies and big agribusinesses, and we would be 'way better off without ethanol subsidies. People who own older chain-saws, outboards, etc know that you have to pay taxes to subsidize ethanol, pay for the ethanol in poor performance, AND pay for extra repairs to filters, fuel lines, carbs, etc, that were designed for real gasoline. That's a whole lot of wasted money to make some people in the midwest happy.
 
  • #192
BobG said:
So what?

We've had two actual impeachments. The motivation for both was "We don't like you!". And then the House 'found' some technicality to justify it. If the House wanted to impeach Obama, they could surely find some grounds to justify it.

In the end, the grounds are irrelevant. If enough Senators don't like the President, he gets impeached. If too few Senators dislike the President, he doesn't get impeached. Very few Senators will base their vote on whether they think the President committed the act he was accused of. (Pres Johnson clearly fired the Secretary of War, a position that requires Senate approval for hiring; Pres Clinton did lie about Monica Lewinsky by any standard definition of lying.)

In the only instance where the grounds were truly significant enough to warrant impeachment, the President resigned.

Actually, if using the 14th Amendment clause is the concern, the House should consider what the Senate would do with an impeachment before bringing the charges. If the Senate 'acquits' the President, then impeachment effectively establishes the 14th Amendment clause as a valid way for the President to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval.

This is an issue that would be better to take to the US Supreme Court somehow to eliminate the chance any future President could use this option.

If key Democrats first block all House legislation - table with no debate - then defer to the President to act without Congress - they may find themselves under the harsh scrutiny of Impeachment as well.

If the game of choice is "hardball" - the Dems better cover their behinds - IMO. Making speeches declaring any House legislation "dead on arrival" - while not passing anything themselves or debating House measures is really not their job - is it?
 
  • #193
Bob, you're mixing up impeachment and trial. The house impeaches, while the senate tries. Ie, clinton was impeached, but not convicted. So the relevant question to me is not whether he could be impeached (definitely) or convicted (probably not), but rather whether an impeached president, possibly in the middle of a trial, can win reelection.

And RE the senate: the senate is not the USSC: Its actions have no bearing on constitutionality. There's a trap in there for Dems too: if they acquit the president despite a strong legal consensus, they will have to answer to their voters.
 
Last edited:
  • #194
WhoWee said:
If key Democrats first block all House legislation - table with no debate - then defer to the President to act without Congress - they may find themselves under the harsh scrutiny of Impeachment as well.

If the game of choice is "hardball" - the Dems better cover their behinds - IMO. Making speeches declaring any House legislation "dead on arrival" - while not passing anything themselves or debating House measures is really not their job - is it?

Senators aren't impeached. They can only be removed by expulsion.

Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion. A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress— impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PL[:#0

The expulsion of a Democratic Senator would be voted on by the entire Senate, including other Democratic Senators (they're still Senators until they've been removed by expulsion, so they still get to vote). I don't think the odds are very high of getting a two thirds majority.

The House can get ticked off at the Senate and stomp their feet, but that's about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #195
BobG said:
Senators aren't impeached. They can only be removed by expulsion.


http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PL[:#0

The expulsion of a Democratic Senator would be voted on by the entire Senate, including other Democratic Senators (they're still Senators until they've been removed by expulsion, so they still get to vote). I don't think the odds are very high of getting a two thirds majority.

The House can get ticked off at the Senate and stomp their feet, but that's about it.

Actually, the House can start the Impeachment proceedings - the Senate doesn't have to follow through.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #196
WhoWee said:
Actually, the House can start the Impeachment proceedings - the Senate doesn't have to follow through.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

From your link:

The first official impeached in this country was Senator William Blount of Tennessee for a plot to help the British seize Louisiana and Florida from Spain in 1797. The Senate dismissed the charges on Jan. 14, 1799, determining that it had no jurisdiction over its own members. The Senate and the House do, however, have the right to discipline their members, and the Senate expelled Blount the day after his impeachment.

Yes, the House impeached a Senator, but that had as much relevance as if you and I got together and impeached a Senator. Obviously, the Senator in this case had to go, but impeachment was the wrong procedure to do that. Expulsion by the Senate was the right procedure.
 
  • #197
BobG said:
From your link:

Yes, the House impeached a Senator, but that had as much relevance as if you and I got together and impeached a Senator. Obviously, the Senator in this case had to go, but impeachment was the wrong procedure to do that. Expulsion by the Senate was the right procedure.

The House has sent legislation to the Senate for debate - the Senate has moved to table the first piece and has promised to do the same on the next. Given the severity of the problem, how can the House be expected to ignore such blatant abuse of power by the Senate leader?

The President called for compromise - a debate of the House legislation on the Senate floor would be a good start - might even restore some confidence in our form of Government?
 
  • #198
turbo said:
This whole circus is so disappointing. Congress voted on spending bills, appropriated money, and ran up debt. There should be no debt limit at all. If Congress would stop spending money like it was free, we could reduce deficits, and ultimately reduce debt.

We don't need a military budget larger than the rest of the world combined. We don't need many hundreds of foreign bases (which result in transfer of money from the American taxpayer to the countries that host the bases). We don't need all the carrier groups that we have currently, unless our political leaders expect to start more air-wars. We certainly don't need to subsidize energy companies and big agribusinesses, and we would be 'way better off without ethanol subsidies. People who own older chain-saws, outboards, etc know that you have to pay taxes to subsidize ethanol, pay for the ethanol in poor performance, AND pay for extra repairs to filters, fuel lines, carbs, etc, that were designed for real gasoline. That's a whole lot of wasted money to make some people in the midwest happy.

you're absolutely right, we don't need all the carrier groups. we need to demand that the EU, as our NATO partners, shoulder some of the burden and fund and build their own carrier groups. please write your congressmen and demand that they exert pressure on the EU to build its own carrier groups.
 
  • #199
I asked a friend who is a retired Navy fast attack sub officer (from the Reagan era) why on Earth do we still need 58 nuclear submarines, which BTW are retired well before there designed life to keep the current production line rolling. He said we should have 100. I declined to offer to pay my share for them.
 
  • #200
mheslep said:
I asked a friend who is a retired Navy fast attack sub officer (from the Reagan era) why on Earth do we still need 58 nuclear submarines, which BTW are retired well before there designed life to keep the current production line rolling. He said we should have 100. I declined to offer to pay my share for them.

Reducing the US military would require a global paradigm shift - friendly nations (European mostly) would need to have larger standing armies. Also, there would have to be no potential threat from another country. Call is fear mongering all you want - but NK, Iran and potentially China are all civilized threats that could potentially harm the US or it's allies. The military deterance is the only thing, imo, stopping NK and Iran especially.
 
Back
Top