About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

For the 14th time.
Author: Raine    Date: 07/28/2011 14:26:10

There are many people quoting a portion of the 14th Amendment as a way for the POTUS to circumvent the GOP-created Debt Ceiling crisis, specifically this portion:
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.
I'm not convinced that this idea is legal. It's easy to pick one or 2 sentences to bolster an opinion from the Constitution. That doesn't make it a bad thing, but I believe it is important to go beyond one or 2 sentences.

This is the entire section 4 of the 14th:
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.
Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I am not by any means shape or form, a constitutional scholar.

Nowhere does section 4 give the President of the United States the unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling. As a matter of fact, in Section 5 of the same amendment, it states:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
That burden is on Congress to ensure the debt is or is not paid. Article I Section 8 states the following:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
and perhaps equally important, Section 7 states:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Let's get back to Section 4, of the 14th. According to this blogger (who states she studied constitutional law) :
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 public debt. ...snip...

The 14th amendment was added post Civil War or as some southerners prefer, the War of Northern Aggression. 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 England and France to help in its secession efforts. So Section 4 confirmed that all U.S. public debt authorized by Congress was legitimate 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. The Confederacy considered slaves to be property and made some noises about reimbursement for the loss of their property.
In other words: this was born of the post Civil War reconstruction. Think Progress is suggesting that the President should invoke the 14th, citing the many legislators who agree as well. The very last paragraph had me tilting my head.
President Obama is currently throwing cold water on the idea that the Constitution will save America from the impending default crisis, but this view has some high-profile dissenters. Right-wing legal scholars Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule made the argument that Obama can invoke the constitutional option in a New York Times op-ed published last week. Earlier this month, former President Bill Clinton said that if he was in Obama’s place, he would use the 14th amendment himself to raise the ceiling.
They linked to this NYT editorial. The problem is, these scholars are not suggesting the use of the 14th Amendment at all. I actually think it may be far more unsettling:
Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.

When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, he said that it was necessary to violate one law, lest all the laws but one fall into ruin. So too here: the president may need to violate the debt ceiling to prevent a catastrophe — whether a default on the debt or an enormous reduction in federal spending, which would throw the country back into recession. ...snip...

The 14th Amendment is a red herring, however; even if its debt provision did not exist, the president would derive authority from his paramount duty to ward off serious threats to the constitutional and economic system.

Mr. Obama needs to make clear that he will act unilaterally to raise the debt ceiling if Congress does not cooperate;
The problem is this, it all comes back to Congress and more specifically, the House of Representatives. It appears to me at first blush that these NYT columnists are suggesting that the President use executive orders to deal with this issue, specifically the Emergency Powers Act updated September 18, 2001 in the wake of the attacks on our nation. It justified giving MORE power to the office of President. I don't think I am comfortable with that idea.
Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation. Moreover, they are not limited to military or war situations. Some of these authorities, deriving from the Constitution or statutory law, are continuously available to the President with little or no qualification. Others—statutory delegations from Congress—exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. These delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens. Furthermore, Congress may modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority.
This act is still hotly contested as to it's constitutional legality, and I am not quite sold that the President can use a national crisis for something that appears to be written for dealing with an international crisis. It's rather scary suggestion, in my opinion.

Wiki tells us, with regard to the Debt Ceiling that
The modern debt limit, in which an aggregate limit was applied to nearly all federal debt, was substantially established by Public Debt Acts passed in 1939 and 1941. The Treasury has been authorized by Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations (as authorized by each federal budget) as long as the total debt (excepting some small special classes) does not exceed a stated ceiling. Since 1979, the House of Representatives by rule has automatically raised the debt ceiling when passing a budget, except when the House votes to waive or repeal this rule.
It all comes back to Congress and the responsibilities given to them by the Constitution of the United States. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says that Congress has the responsibility, and the Public Debt Act reinforces it, seemingly by clarifying the definition of what exactly public debt is in more modern means. It is far different than post-war reconstruction days, as was the intent originally of the 14th which also includes the Citizenship Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause. The Public Debt clause at the time was to prevent the federal government from getting sued by slave owners who believed they LOST property.

If the President risks invoking the 14th, he could possibly set himself up for impeachment. It simply doesn't appear that it gives him the power to do so. I'm not sure the same can be said for the Emergency Powers Act. I do not know if he can sign an executive order lest he usurp the powers of another branch of government. That has always been legally ambiguous.
It is quite common for US Presidents to issue executive orders that instruct federal agencies to promulgate administrative regulations in order to circumvent the legislative process in the US Congress altogether, though, as alluded to above, this can violate the US Constitution in a number of ways. US Presidents are quite aware that US congressional politics can defeat or otherwise prevent the passage of legislation presidents deem politically important.


So, I really don't know what's possible at this point. I do know this: if the GOP led House is willing to take this country to the brink of financial ruin, they would easily jump at a chance to impeach. If you don't believe that, then you haven't been paying attention.

This is not a legal opinion, I'm just pondering things.

Signed,
Your non-scholarly -- in the way of the Constitution and legalities -- blogger.

and
Raine


PS: I want to thank Scoopster for giving us a blog stub this morning. While I have combined the blogs, I want to bring over his wonderful graphic from the Stub:

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/285206_2124787152114_1018943185_32459011_5877484_n.jpg

 

98 comments (Latest Comment: 07/29/2011 02:48:14 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 13:20:06
I did. I just lost my entire damn blog. F*CK


Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:20:07
Morning

Trailer for Margin Call - looks really intense, based on the Wall Street crash. Might go on my go see list


Margin Call trailer

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:20:09
Morning. Things are little shaky today. Crap happens. :shurg:

Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:20:19
Hmm.. not displaying how I'd expected. Oh well I'll change it.

Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 13:21:02

Lemme try it again. Gdmnitall


Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:21:36
A good article on ALEC. if you are so anti-government, why are you getting government money?

Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:21:58
Quote by Raine:

Lemme try it again. Gdmnitall



Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 13:25:08
Say did you guys see the pics from the ginormnous teabagger rally yesterday at the Capitol?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6006/5981973020_568b5c0f70.jpg


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/07/Washington-Tea-Party-Rally-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg


(Yes, the news crews outpopulated the actual teabaggers)

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:31:01
Quote by Scoopster:
Say did you guys see the pics from the ginormnous teabagger rally yesterday at the Capitol?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6006/5981973020_568b5c0f70.jpg


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/07/Washington-Tea-Party-Rally-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg


(Yes, the news crews outpopulated the actual teabaggers)


Yet they hold enormous sway over the Republican cult party

Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:31:19
Saw those pix, all I could think of was the poor person who had to set up that stage. Those things are not light nor are they easy to deal with.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:37:35
Here is another question to ponder. What would happen to the Teabaggers if the hated "lamestream" media stopped covering their shenanigans? yeah guys in cute tricorner hates make for good images, but what if, just what news outlets covered them on a sober, objective Walter Cronkite kinda way? Don't you think they would just look like the absurdly ill-informed, backwards a-holes they really are?

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 13:50:32
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:54:32
If these "callers" are going to keep calling they need to change the script.

Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 13:56:30


Always good to be prepared

BTW - good Poltical thriller and zombie book - Feed by Mira Grant. Highly recommend


Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 14:01:26
While the faux deficit crisis screws continue to turn, Republicans continue to neglect funding the FAA.

A interesting note on this story.. besides putting thousands of FAA employees and contracted construction workers working on improving airports nationwide temporarily OUT OF A JOB, millions of dollars in fees normally assessed by the FAA are not being collected, shifting more money away from government needs and increasing the deficit while corporations reap the rewards.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:02:28
Why I find Alternet exasperating.

The author says "Patton" was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Oh? Really? Nice try, wrong. This is basic fact checking. If you can't get this right, what else are screwing up?

Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 14:02:48
Report from the author: the blog is being recreated and will be appearing soon.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled... um... stuff.


Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:13:52
Quote by BobR:
Report from the author: the blog is being recreated and will be appearing soon.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled... um... stuff.


Hey the stuff is interesting!

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:32:16
Nice blog! Thanks for amplifying your comment to yesterday's blog post that you did last evening.

One wonky point. The current reason we have this congress raising the debt limit comes from the 1974 budget reform act. Again one of these things I learned about when I was a young polisci major many years ago.

Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 14:42:06
Quote by Mondobubba:
Nice blog! Thanks for amplifying your comment to yesterday's blog post that you did last evening.

One wonky point. The current reason we have this congress raising the debt limit comes from the 1974 budget reform act. Again one of these things I learned about when I was a young polisci major many years ago.
well, I got about as wonky as I could, I was of the understanding that the Debt ceiling was further defined by the act that you mention, however the Debt Ceiling has been around for much longer than that.



Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 14:44:11
Blog up! Sorry about the delay everyone. Bobber will edit it for me when he gets back to his computer.

Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 14:50:38
Scoop, I made sure I kept that most awesome image in das blog. Thank you again.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:53:39
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Nice blog! Thanks for amplifying your comment to yesterday's blog post that you did last evening.

One wonky point. The current reason we have this congress raising the debt limit comes from the 1974 budget reform act. Again one of these things I learned about when I was a young polisci major many years ago.
well, I got about as wonky as I could, I was of the understanding that the Debt ceiling was further defined by the act that you mention, however the Debt Ceiling has been around for much longer than that.



Oh no doubt about the debt ceiling. If I remember correctly prior to the BRA, The Treasury just upped the debt limit as needed. There has been some discussion that I've seen about returning to this model. It takes the politics out of raising the limit.

Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 14:54:59
Quote by Raine:
Scoop, I made sure I kept that most awesome image in das blog. Thank you again.

You're very welcome! It kinda fits the whole theme we've been working with recently..

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 14:57:12
On a pop culture note, the Modanna directed movie about Edward VII and Wallis Simpson is opening at The Venice Film Festival. :eyeroll:

Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 15:09:19
Quote by Mondobubba:
On a pop culture note, the Modanna directed movie about Edward VII and Wallis Simpson is opening at The Venice Film Festival. :eyeroll:
Link?

You never know, it could be good! Right? RIGHT ?


Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:12:50
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"

Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire

Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:14:09
Quote by wickedpam:
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"

Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire

Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?

Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 15:15:43
Mondo, I was looking for info on this movie, and Did you mean Edward VIII I ask becuse I came across this:

Even those only vaguely familiar with British history know who Simpson is. She was the American divorcee who King Edward VIII fell for so hard that he chose to abdicate the throne in order to marry her. The story has always been painted with a high gloss of romance, though many have whispered the push for Edward to abdicate had more to do with England being alarmed by some of Edward and Wallis' German friends. Simpson was a controversial woman in her day, and remains a historical figure of a lot of rumor and speculation, which is probably why Madonna is interested in her.


Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 15:18:30
I love that John McCain pulled out the inexperience card.

Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:19:24
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by wickedpam:
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"

Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire

Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?



It would have to be orange and sparkly - like sequined disco pants

Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:21:39
AMAZING article in The Atlantic about Obama's style of governing.

Explains a lot about why he does things the way he does, and why so many misinterpret him as a centrist when he's really just a non-ideologue.

Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 15:22:14
Good job on the blog, my ... wonky, yet easy to follow.

Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 15:23:11
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by wickedpam:
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"

Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire

Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?


It would have to be orange and sparkly - like sequined disco pants

vampire? Has he been biting Oompa Loompas again?

Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 15:25:08
Quote by BobR:
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by wickedpam:
OMG - Boehner counters calls to congress with sign my petition "Team Boehner"

Now he thinks he's a sparkly vampire

Oh gawd do we really want to see that photoshop job?


It would have to be orange and sparkly - like sequined disco pants

vampire? Has he been biting Oompa Loompas again?


Its a Twilight fandom reference with the team crap

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 15:25:28
Quote by Raine:
Mondo, I was looking for info on this movie, and Did you mean Edward VIII I ask becuse I came across this:

Even those only vaguely familiar with British history know who Simpson is. She was the American divorcee who King Edward VIII fell for so hard that he chose to abdicate the throne in order to marry her. The story has always been painted with a high gloss of romance, though many have whispered the push for Edward to abdicate had more to do with England being alarmed by some of Edward and Wallis' German friends. Simpson was a controversial woman in her day, and remains a historical figure of a lot of rumor and speculation, which is probably why Madonna is interested in her.



Yes, I did. My bad!

Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:27:16
Quote by BobR:
Good job on the blog, my ... wonky, yet easy to follow.

I have to agree.. Raine, you've brought me around to different line of thinking on this one. The wording on 14th Amendment Section 4 is too obscure to be totally certain that the President can derive authority from it, and with several other references elsewhere in the Constitution to Congressional power related to budgetary & debt matters it really would not be worth starting a fight that might result in not only impeachment but also another "strict constructionist" Supreme Court precedent.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 15:27:41
Quote by Raine:
Mondo, I was looking for info on this movie, and Did you mean Edward VIII I ask becuse I came across this:

Even those only vaguely familiar with British history know who Simpson is. She was the American divorcee who King Edward VIII fell for so hard that he chose to abdicate the throne in order to marry her. The story has always been painted with a high gloss of romance, though many have whispered the push for Edward to abdicate had more to do with England being alarmed by some of Edward and Wallis' German friends. Simpson was a controversial woman in her day, and remains a historical figure of a lot of rumor and speculation, which is probably why Madonna is interested in her.


There is some speculatation that Wallis was Edward VIII's Mistress if you catch my drift.

Let's not forget that whole pro-fascist thing...just sayin...

Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 15:36:30
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by BobR:
Good job on the blog, my ... wonky, yet easy to follow.

I have to agree.. Raine, you've brought me around to different line of thinking on this one. The wording on 14th Amendment Section 4 is too obscure to be totally certain that the President can derive authority from it, and with several other references elsewhere in the Constitution to Congressional power related to budgetary & debt matters it really would not be worth starting a fight that might result in not only impeachment but also another "strict constructionist" Supreme Court precedent.
I almost brought SCOTUS into this, That is an entirely bigger can of worms. I've yet to see someone present a valid -- and legal reasoning -- that the 14th is something the POTUS can use.

I have tried. I don't feel comfortable writing things that appear so absolute without seeing the legal opinions of others that think this is valid. So, I will appreciate people dissenting. Just saying we should do so isn't good enough for me. I'm still looking for a constitutional basis for the POTUS to go this route.

So, far, I just don't see it.




Comment by Will in Chicago on 07/28/2011 15:42:39
Good morning, bloggers!!

I am not sure what solution will work for the debt ceiling crisis. If there is no solution, my hope is that the GOP will be blamed for it. I was amazed by John McCain's comments, and I can only imagine how he, Richard Lugar and the elder statesmen of the GOP are looking at their younger colleagues. It may be somewhat similar to how Doctor Frankenstein viewed his monster when he realized that his creation must be destroyed.

Comment by Scoopster on 07/28/2011 15:56:15
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/28/2011 16:02:22
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by BobR:
Good job on the blog, my ... wonky, yet easy to follow.

I have to agree.. Raine, you've brought me around to different line of thinking on this one. The wording on 14th Amendment Section 4 is too obscure to be totally certain that the President can derive authority from it, and with several other references elsewhere in the Constitution to Congressional power related to budgetary & debt matters it really would not be worth starting a fight that might result in not only impeachment but also another "strict constructionist" Supreme Court precedent.
I almost brought SCOTUS into this, That is an entirely bigger can of worms. I've yet to see someone present a valid -- and legal reasoning -- that the 14th is something the POTUS can use.

I have tried. I don't feel comfortable writing things that appear so absolute without seeing the legal opinions of others that think this is valid. So, I will appreciate people dissenting. Just saying we should do so isn't good enough for me. I'm still looking for a constitutional basis for the POTUS to go this route.

So, far, I just don't see it.





The last two paragraphs of Gene Lyon's Salon article today have an interesting take on this.

"A budget default would give the White House unprecedented, arguably illegal power to pick and choose which laws it would obey. Then there's the 14th Amendment, stating that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

Hence the president would be on solid grounds, constitutional scholars argue, simply to raise the National Debt limit by executive order and dare Congress to do something about it. Sure, right-wing cultists would go even crazier, screaming about tyranny and threatening impeachment.

I'd like to see them try."

The whole thing is worth a read about the Republican Cult Party

Comment by Raine on 07/28/2011 16:10:23
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.

I am not a Redkins' fan, but that guy was a mess.

Comment by BobR on 07/28/2011 16:13:15
Comment by wickedpam on 07/28/2011 16:14:53
Quote by Raine:
BTW, Enjoy Albert Haynesworth, New England... He very well make Manny look small time.

I am not a Redkins' fan, but that guy was a mess.



but I'm going to miss local radio making fun of him

Comment by livingonli on 07/28/2011 16:28:17
Quote by Mondobubba:
Why I find Alternet exasperating.

The author says "Patton" was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Oh? Really? Nice try, wrong. This is basic fact checking. If you can't get this right, what else are screwing up?

Feels like when I complained about the one article about politics and comic books where the author said that Black Panther was a member of the Justice League when he was a member of the Avengers. Someone is mixing up those Marvel and DC properties which any comic book geek will tell you not to do.

Comment by livingonli on 07/28/2011 16:33:18
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
Mondo, I was looking for info on this movie, and Did you mean Edward VIII I ask becuse I came across this:

Even those only vaguely familiar with British history know who Simpson is. She was the American divorcee who King Edward VIII fell for so hard that he chose to abdicate the throne in order to marry her. The story has always been painted with a high gloss of romance, though many have whispered the push for Edward to abdicate had more to do with England being alarmed by some of Edward and Wallis' German friends. Simpson was a controversial woman in her day, and remains a historical figure of a lot of rumor and speculation, which is probably why Madonna is interested in her.


There is some speculatation that Wallis was Edward VIII's Mistress if you catch my drift.

Let's not forget that whole pro-fascist thing...just sayin...

There did seem to be a lot of people in Britain who would have had no problem aligning with Hitler, but then Hitler's racial hierarchy did put Brits, Germans, and Northern Europeans at the top of his racial pecking order.