The buzz yesterday is that there may be another way to resolve the deadly game of chicken being foisted upon the American people by the Tea Party over the debt. It turns out that the answer was in plain sight all along.
The 14th Amendment, section 4, quite plainly reads:
Section 4. 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.
In effect, this says, that once a debt is owed by the United States, the United States will pay it, debt ceiling or not. Having a debt ceiling is really meaningless and unconstitutional once the debt has been incurred. So all the fuss about how we might not pay is nonsense.
This puts the Tea Party in the awkward position of having to go against the clear language of the Constitution in order to continue on what has been a quite obvious dance with potential destruction. President Obama needs only assert that this is his interpretation, and that's the end of the immediate crisis. It would eliminate the need to negotiate with the Republicans at all on the near-term question of debt.
That doesn't mean he shouldn't continue to make any prudent cuts in wasteful spending, but it does provide much-needed breathing room. Although the matter of the debt, if left unchecked, will become quite severe in coming years, some prominent economists have opined that the debt and the deficit are not our most pressing short-term problem and that the recession is a considerably greater short-term concern. As such, we need to do targeted investment spending, an economic “surge” if you will, to get America back to work and out of the current recession. We do not need more hastily-made, slash-and-burn tax cuts in the destabilizing way that Republicans have been trying to force in a transparent attempt to both cripple the middle class who might vote against them and get that crippling blamed on the Democrats.
As such, the President really must not go ahead with any concessions that he may have made simply out of fear that the Tea Party might force a default. Word has it that the Administration has been prepared to make some fairly radical cuts as part of bargaining for tax increases, but they now have more options and the President must adjust his strategy to acknowledge that. It is simply not appropriate for the President now to say, “well, we promised we'd get rid of this stuff and we're going to do it even if the Republicans don't do their part in allowing us to raise taxes on the rich.” Democrats have made too many unilateral concessions to the Republicans. They have the upper hand now and must use that advantage to restore balance.
What the President must do is to promise that if re-elected, he will simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, as he should have done already. These tax cuts were extended into the next presidential term, allowing the President to avoid making a decision on the matter for this election cycle. However, the American people need to know that they can trust the President to do the right thing in the future. It is a travesty that he allowed them to be extended at all, as it would not have required any votes by the Republicans. And he may have wished he wouldn't have to take a position on the matter. However, if he agrees that they would expire in his next term, it creates a powerful incentive for progressives not to jump ship on his re-election.
Personally, while I might expect President Obama to use the 14th Amendment to resolve this, I doubt he'll make such promises. Based on past performance, I must say that I think he seems way too comfortable in his self-made role as Compromiser-in-Chief, and way too little little concerned with the needs of the Democrats just now. I think that's because absent any credible challenge from another member of his party, he thinks party members have nowhere to run and may be relied upon to support him without his lifting a finger. In fact, at this point, to my great surprise, he seems single-mindedly and I think somewhat cynically concerned with currying favor only with Republicans.
Ironically, it's the Republicans who have been pushing this message lately: that President Obama is failing to lead. I think they're right on that isolated fact. But I think they imagine we'll all want to rush into their welcoming arms in disgust, and I'm less sure about that. Still, what we need is some credible alternative from within the Democratic Party.†
Now would be the time for Hillary Clinton to step forward, promising the Democratic leadership that President Obama has been failing to do. She's said she won't run, but she could change her mind. She's a patriot, after all.
She could promise that, if elected, she would allow the Bush tax cuts to really expire. Even just the debate that would result would be worth the effort, since Obama could then no longer take the support of his Democratic for granted, and he'd have to lean back to the left. The national debate would change in really substantive ways.
I think if Hillary ran, she would have a really excellent chance of prevailing. I think she would do us proud.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
†Some would argue that this is the time for a third-party candidate. It's a romantic notion and has some appeal, but it's a terribly dangerous plan that could backfire horribly, bleeding off enough support from Democrats to give Republicans the upper hand. I'm not willing to suggest it. I think Hillary is a solid enough choice that if she could be convinced to run, that would just be the obviously right thing.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
The idea of reopening this now is insane.
Whichever party has the presidency can unilaterally eliminate them.
The entire mess is rather simple:
1. Spend as much as possible for the next 12 months, with as much frontloaded as possible.
2. Backload cuts.
3. The entire 'crisis' must be settled on reducing health care spending as a percentage of GDP.
To some extent, the surge in Afghanistan was simply a 'shovel ready' project. That plus the continuing savings from pulling out of Iraq makes a nice dent in required future spending cuts.
Libya is the future for our Generals. We only do cheap stuff, demand that our 'allies' go all in regarding political capital -- as well as act in a back up role that utilizes only our technological superiority.
But, first and foremost, push the Republicans including the Tea Baggers to OWN the inevitable cost cuts in health care. The only way to actually cut costs involve rationalization of the system which is part of the Democratic playbook.
They took the political hit for the first major attempt at rationalization. Force the Republicans to take the next one.
However, it could prove useful political cover to eliminate a showdown that is inherently idiotic.
The desire for all politicians of all parties, including the Tea Baggers, is to defer the unpopular.
If it gains traction, it will be the Republicans that see the folly of going into 2012 on record as forcing cuts of highly popular social programs.
When you have a group of financiers actively exploiting the poverty of the uber-poor, and forcing them into deeper poverty and despair, and when 40-50% consumer debt in America is due to emergency medical expenses alone (a VERY SMALL PORTION OF CONSUMER DEBT IS ACTUALLY DUE TO "fiscal irresponsibility), then this is, in my opinion, an EMINENTLY SENSIBLE THING TO DO.
The pervading belief in America that the indebtedness of the working classes is due to their "lack of fiscal responsibility" is a form of class-bias.
I come from a working, lower class family. The vast majority of the time my single mom used credit cards was for (a) her chemotheraphy [they cut her health insurance], (b) groceries, because she was laid off and food donations from the salvation army weren't sufficient and (c) clothes for her growing kids (not designer brands, and all basic, utility-necessary) and winter coats.
I am also the Chief Financial Education Instructor for my local Habitat for Humanity branch. I am very knowledgeable about this. While some of this is due to lack of knowledge, it is more about lack of knowledge about how they are being exploited, due to their poverty. Most middle class folks lack this knowledge of the games financiers play, too. The thing is, financiers tend to not play these games with the middle classes, because the middle classes can afford attorneys.
…I get that you, and people who think as you do…will not flock to the Republican candidate, but there are plenty of people who will. I suspect the liberals with their unrelenting moaning about what Barak Obama is not doing…have managed to undermine his chances for re-election. I think it highly likely that the Republican candidate, whoever she might be, will probably unseat Obama next election. Having a primary fight for the Democratic candidate will probably do more to solidify the Democratic loss than anything else I can think of.
I hope Hillary waits until 2016 to run. Her candidacy in 2012 would be a disaster for the Democrats…just as the win I am predicting for the Republicans will more than likely be a disaster for our country and the world.
Democratic expectations have been absurdly unrealistic right from the beginning of the Obama presidency. He has gotten as much from the environment in which he has been working as possible…and a hell of a lot more than I expected him to get.
As for the debt, someone is going to have to blink or the “world economy” will become world chaos. Who eventually will blink is still up for grabs. But Obama is getting no backing whatever from his constituency…and the Republicans are getting tons from theirs…so if there is any handwriting on the wall…it don’t look good as far as I am concerned.
rated with love
But this: "I'll just say that such would increase the sense that there as no penalty for not being financially prudent among the lower-end of the economic scale. I do think we should do some things for people down there'"
Down There ?!?!?! Really? Down there? You're a smart guy but that statement just plain stinks.
The Constitution was written for We the People....not a Church, Corporation nor Government.
We the People can tell all those jack@sses and elephants that act like turnips to do what we the people want....and the president would have to sit there just like the rest of the turnips.
America is $57 trillion in debt....$100 trillion shortfall in social security and medicare and having a health insurance policy hanging around 305 million Americans with no way to pay for it ain't gonna solve a dang thing.
There is no where in the Constitution that Government is to take care of We the People....We the People is what spells Constitution.
RW005G, I've looked at this topic but not in quite the way you suggest. (See the links I pointed a.k.a. to, for example, though there are others.) I agree with a lot of the substance of what you're saying about the problem description, but I'll have to ponder the dynamics of your suggestion awhile before I have a considered opinion. I hope you didn't infer anything ill of my question about sarcasm; the general form of your remark was ambiguous. I'll think more and perhaps have more to say later.
Frank, I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that blinking is required. I think the Democrats are capable of confronting the spending issue in an adult way. I just think it can't be done on the timetable the Republicans seem to want. It's odd to me because the Republicans are perfectly willing to say we can't pull troops out of this or that country for fear that they would be destabilized by too-rapid lack of support, but they won't make the same statement about pulling support out of our own country.
Poetess, thanks for the support!
mad, I confess I doubt your numbers. Can you cite sources so I can check them out? Also, the Constitution does mention the general welfare, and it is a legitimate topic of concern.
american people do not live in a democracy, and any president will do what he thinks best for himself, confusing his career with the national welfare as they always do.
the point of a debt ceiling is to prevent politicians from buying votes by indebting generations to come. it is an attempt at intergenerational equity. it will fail, because politicians can not regulate themselves, and the people can not regulate them for lack of democracy.
politicians spend other people's money, and that is why the american economy is collapsing. citizen's spend their own money, one of the reasons democracy is better than elective aristocracy.
you may wish to break the debt ceiling, but your children will pay for your weakness.
I like the Hillary in the race scenario too.
Well done, thoughtful post.. as always Kent.
Rated for many things, but would have given this a thumbs up for the above sentence alone!
Greed is at the root of OUR problems.
I would like to point to two:
"What the President must do is to promise that if re-elected, he will simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, as he should have done already. These tax cuts were extended into the next presidential term, allowing the President to avoid making a decision on the matter for this election cycle. However, the American people need to know that they can trust the President to do the right thing in the future. It is a travesty that he allowed them to be extended at all, as it would not have required any votes by the Republicans. And he may have wished he wouldn't have to take a position on the matter. However, if he agrees that they would expire in his next term, it creates a powerful incentive for progressives not to jump ship on his re-election.
What has obama done to make me believe that he would follow through with such an agreement/promise? His record on promises, speaks for itself. It seems to me, he will say ANYTHING to get elected, and then, TOTALLY, go back on his word.
These two sentences are so true:
"In fact, at this point, to my great surprise, he seems single-mindedly and I think somewhat cynically concerned with currying favor only with Republicans."
"Still, what we need is some credible alternative from within the Democratic Party,"
however I don't see much credibility in Hillary.
I WOULD vote for Kucinich, but "they'll" never allow him a fair shot at it.
-R-
Then, and only then, can we talk about FEDERAL influence.
Until then, we must be content with letting Rome burn, because there aint too much we can do about it. So be it.
Secondly, I share your malaise about the conduct of the Obama administration entirely, and I certainly think you're spot on about Obama's pandering to the GOP.
Thirdly, I don't see how it's possible for Hillary to just take over and successfully run for President in 2012 unless Obama were to die or resign. Institutional arrangements in DC and the D party are simply too powerful to allow for a switch from Obama to Hillary in this election cycle, although some people put forward the outside chance of job swapping between Hillary and Biden.
Meanwhile, as I've said elsewhere, the fix is in. Expect the same tired theatrics that happened with the budget resolution "debate" earlier this year. The Rs go up to the very last second. Some fig leaf compromises are made on the part of the Ds, and establishment Ds and Rs combine to relegate the Tea Party-oids to the far corner of right field all by themselves.
The fact of the matter is, no one sees the horrible, deep divisions that are fracturing the Republican Party right now. We are witnessing the slow rebranding of the GOP as a more sensible, centrist wing.
The 14th Amendment had already been ratified at the time the “debt ceiling” law was enacted. This amendment was one of several passed in connection with the Civil War to address its causes and its consequences. The section to which your post refers effectively made the South reimburse, in part, the expenses to defeat them.
Hence, since 1917, one would presume the constitutionality of the “debt ceiling” statute with regards to the 14th Amendment would have crossed the minds of many. Since it has not been severely tested on this basis (to my knowledge), then one might also surmise that either many have concluded that it is constitutional or many have concluded that the consequences of litigating its constitutionality would have harmful effects. More on this below.
Before we get to this, however, let me suggest this reading from the Congressional Research Service:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL31967_20100128.pdf .
Let me also refer you Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution of these United States. Component parts of this part of our constitution are commonly known as the as the Taxing and Spending, General Welfare, and Uniformity Clauses.
You might also wish to familiarize yourself with Clauses 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 18 (the last one) in this section. All of these enumerate the powers assigned to Congress associated with the creation or use of public funds, our armed forces, and war. A small amount of fact would help this debate.
The power of the purse lies with Congress, not with the President. Congress can exercise the powers granted under the aforementioned clauses in a way that would/could bitchslap this President so hard that his sainted mother would hurt.
So, let’s pretend that President Obama follows the offering of your post above and expands his presidential powers by declaring the “debt ceiling” unconstitutional and further deciding that all the fuss about how we pay it is nonsense. To add insult to injury, the president decides on his own, or asks Congress for legislation, to do some "targeted investment spending".
After doing the suggested reading, let me predict that Congress will react to these presidential decisions by informing Barack Obama exactly what language is clear in the Constitution, how it is not going to authorize the money the President needs to pay our obligations without its consent (14th Amendment notwithstanding), and just what timeline and charges will soon be in place for his impeachment.
The 14th Amendment had already been ratified at the time the “debt ceiling” law was enacted. This amendment was one of several passed in connection with the Civil War to address its causes and its consequences. The section to which your post refers effectively made the South reimburse, in part, the expenses to defeat them.
Hence, since 1917, one would presume the constitutionality of the “debt ceiling” statute with regards to the 14th Amendment would have crossed the minds of many. Since it has not been severely tested on this basis (to my knowledge), then one might also surmise that either many have concluded that it is constitutional or many have concluded that the consequences of litigating its constitutionality would have harmful effects. More on this below.
Before we get to this, however, let me suggest this reading from the Congressional Research Service:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL31967_20100128.pdf .
Let me also refer you Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution of these United States. Component parts of this part of our constitution are commonly known as the as the Taxing and Spending, General Welfare, and Uniformity Clauses.
You might also wish to familiarize yourself with Clauses 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 18 (the last one) in this section. All of these enumerate the powers assigned to Congress associated with the creation or use of public funds, our armed forces, and war. A small amount of fact would help this debate.
The power of the purse lies with Congress, not with the President. Congress can exercise the powers granted under the aforementioned clauses in a way that would/could bitchslap this President so hard that his sainted mother would hurt.
So, let’s pretend that President Obama follows the offering of your post above and expands his presidential powers by declaring the “debt ceiling” unconstitutional and further deciding that all the fuss about how we pay it is nonsense. To add insult to injury, the president decides on his own, or asks Congress for legislation, to do some "targeted investment spending".
After doing the suggested reading, let me predict that Congress will react to these presidential decisions by informing Barack Obama exactly what language is clear in the Constitution, how it is not going to authorize the money the President needs to pay our obligations without its consent (14th Amendment notwithstanding), and just what timeline and charges will soon be in place for his impeachment.
tr ig, thanks for stopping in and for the support. And I think your response to al is correct about the source of the problem.
Tim, I always love hearing what people get drawn to in these. Thanks for calling out that phrase.
Mark, I think Obama has tried to meet all his promises. I now look to how specific his promises are. In many cases where he let people down, it was because they read more into what he said than what we thought he had said. There is a good quote by Orson Scott Card on this in his recent book Hidden Empire: “Politics is the art of simultaneously satisfying groups with conflicting goals. The traditional way of accomplishing this is to speak to the groups separately, lie, and then, if you are caught, deny it. You count on the voters to forget or lose interest or change their minds, and they almost always come through for you. In our time, between national television and the internet, contradictions are more easily caught, so not the best method of pleasing everyone is to promise nothing while seeming to promise everything.”
Lefty, one has to behave as if the institutions of the Court matter, even though I agree it's compromised. I agree the Republican party is fragmenting, but they are skilled at asymmetric warfare and it's not clear that just because they're fragmented, they can't turn out a higher percentage of their base than the Dems, giving them still a fighting chance. And they can also cause a bunch of people annoyed at Obama to do the wrong thing. That will help them, too. I even believe those who say Bachmann could win if the Dems are not careful.
UncleChri, I agree with you the Constitutionality per se of the debt limit may have come up, but Constitutionality is not binary. Constitutionality is as much about the application of the rule, so it might be that only upon seeing how its effect is being interpreted that one understands it must go. As they say, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” and at the point where people are starting to suggest that the implications of the wording of the Constitution is that we must do something incredibly foolish, the Court has an obligation to say there are other ways to interpret it—especially since, notwithstanding your stare decisis argument, a common sense reading of it can be construed to say so.
What we're doing now is basically arguing over who gets into what lifeboat. As of now, the rich are getting them all and the poor folk are being locked in steerage.
But, alas, the ship WILL sink...
As for longer term solutions, I'll stick with the conventional lefty wisdom of at least letting the Bush tax cuts expire and slashing military spending. Infrastructure spending and green energy investment are also needed just for starters.
The money for specific appropriations would be gone.
The 4th clause of the 14th is somewhat vague, but it seems it could be cited to authorize the Treasury Sec to spend whatever funds they could manage to use, or whatever device can be considered constitutional to effect payment. This clause has only seen one day in the S Court, and that ruling supports this interpretation.
However, this once-only decision is not because, as Chris surmises, that litigating it may be harmful. It's simply hasn't has come up in the SC more than once. "Surmising" that a clause in the Constitution is constitutional sure is a waste of a "surmise." That should be obvious, yet...
This isn't about the power of Congress to spend, as these debt expenditures were already authorized. This is about whether Congress will fund the spending they already authorized.
The Treasury department does have the authority to spend on said debt and other expenses already authorized. That authority is better expressed in art 1, sec 9. Spending is authorized by appropriation, and the appropriations in question were already authorized. In other words, Congress, by authorizing the debt instruments, has agreed to pay them. This is a valid implication, and should be obvious.
This isn't about Congress' spending powers. This is about whether Congress will expand debt to enable the spending they have already authorized. Subtle, perhaps, but a true distinction.
It's not really about spending power, it's about politics. The GOP -- the Reigning Kings of Debt & Debt Ceiling Raising -- now want to be "responsible." What a joke. Haven't they done enough damage already?
Here's the art 1 sec 9 clause that applies:
"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."
If the appropriations were made, and they were, then the Treasury is authorized to pay them.
To cite just one example; recess appointments and signing statements.
bush the lesser used them with reckless abandon -- obama acts as if he's never heard of them.
The Dems while in charge of the House, which starts all spending, failed to pass a budget. They just threw billions of dollars at "targeted" BS that was just a waste.
The debt ceiling should not be raised. That will hold the feet to the fire of those in Congress. It will force them to grow a pair of balls and say this program is a must and this program is nice to have, and get rid of the nice programs. Congress will only changed when they are forced to, and maybe this will do it.
Obama could, with whatever funds or devices available, spend on the already authorized objects, so Chris' he-could-be-impeached line is constitutionally ignorant. This isn't about Congress' spending power, as the budget funds are to be applied to the last, already authorized budget and servicing the accumulated debt the GOP has burdened us with. The Treasury has already been authorized to spend, it's merely a question of Congress funding that spending. Maybe pointing that out 3-4 times will allow it to sink in...
You are correct. They have already authorized the money to be spent. Problem is we don't have it. So you can either raise the debt limit or remove the authorization to spend the money. What ever money you don't spend is money you don't have to raise the debt limit for.
Will they have to raise the limit? As much as I hate it, yes. They can't get their collective heads out of their asses to cut spending, and it's not just one party, they all are to blame at some point. Do you ever remember them not raising the limit when it got hit? I don't. So why have it?
Have you ever said to one of your kids "okay, the next time you...". I think we all have in one form or another. Maybe it's time we treat Congress the same way and take away what they like most until they figure out how to live within their budget.
I'm sure that I'm also not the only one that has something come up and had to break out the credit card for an unexpected bill. When we do we pay it off and we don't plan on living month after month by adding to the credit card. Our government is the same way. There will be times when we have to break out the "government credit card" but we shouldn't be living on it.
Look at what is going on in Greece. I think they have hit their limit and are now paying one hell of an over limit fee. I don't know when we will have to pay the fee, but everybody has that point someplace. Frankly, I don't want to ever get to that point. What we can't do is wait until we get there then try to change the way the game is played.
If printing money is an option then fire up the presses boys, we have a few trillion to print. Do you think Congress will authorize a trillion dollar note?
Abrawang, I imagine there will be additional posturing, so indeed I was probably oversimplifying somewhat. But it wasn't me that made up this interpretation in isolation. There are serious people who believe this approach, and Obama needs to explore it so he isn't forced into a bad situation. All I care is that he start to assert the obvious and sane truth that we are going to pay our debts, so the world currency markets don't panic. The IMF issued a pretty clear message yesterday, saying “The federal debt ceiling should be raised expeditiously to avoid a severe shock to the economy and world financial markets.” I think we have to just act on that, and sooner rather than later. There's nothing to say that our credit rating can't be dinged before the big crisis just to get our attention. I'd like not to wait for that.
As for appointments, yes, I think Obama hasn't been as aggressive in his choices or his tactics as he needs to be. His propensity to pre-compromise (some people say “offer unilateral concessions”) drives me nuts.
It may be that you and I see his carrying through of responsibility differently. Don't read from that any sense that I'm not terribly disappointed in him. I just think he has a way of viewing things that is different than mine, and to some degree it's my fault for reading his vague statements a certain way in the election. In retrospect, sometimes where he disappoints me, he actually said he was going to... A good reason to replace him with a more progressive Democrat, in my opinion, which is why I'm calling for Hillary (or anyone credible) to primary him.
And certainly no offense taken by the disagreement. I don't mind it when people disagree, as long as they're civil. I disagree often with Catnlion and UncleChri, but am happy to see that both are speaking on topic today without getting personal. They have points of view very different than mine, but I like mixing it up with different points of view when people stay on the issues and without the personal stuff.
At their best, political parties are not personal philosophies that one swears allegiance to but they are idea factories that generate suggestions for us all to consider. Because they come from different points of view, they may offer ways of looking at things we miss if we look only at our own habitual angle.
Not to mention, the fact, that You and Your posts are completely devoid of delusion, and are fact-based, in stark contrast, to many others, here.
Also, Cat, you say the debt ceiling should not be raised. Now, suppose our credit rating gets dinged and the cited reason is “people saying the debt ceiling should not be raised made us nervous.” Is there any financial responsibility of the people who said this? It it fair to ask the people who've been saying raise it to pay the extra money to cover additional interest that comes of a ruined credit rating directly attributable to foot dragging? Is it just free for you to suggest this very dangerous thing?
Study: US Wars Cost $4 Trillion
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/06/29/study-us-wars-cost-4-trillion-killed-258000/
We spend too much. No that's not quite right, we spend WAY too much. Admittedly, prioritizing how much we should spend, and on what, is a difficult decision making process. But the core issue is simple. We spend too much.
We do not EVER focus on revenue. Instead we focus on being envious and vindictive, and wrap that venom in a discussion disguised as being about revenue.
Simple math. If you're measuring dollars going out, balance that with dollars coming in. We tend to focus on dollars going out, and percentages coming in, minus discounts, rebates, exclusions, and exemptions.
If I tax you 10 percent on your income, I can anticipate what I'll get at the end of the year, or in quarterly payments, or in bi-weekly contributions. You can attach any terms you want. But 10% of a known number, is a known number.
On the other hand, if I tax you 35% on a known income, but allow for the deduction of the interest on your home mortgage, and the car you lease for business, and your medical expenses, and the meals you eat while on the road, and the tools you buy for work - I have no idea how much income I will receive from the 35% I taxed you.
This is simple, demonstrable, and repeatable.
Make the problem complex, and the solution will be unachievable. Make the problem simple, and you can find a solution that will work for the short, mid, and long term but the end of business next Friday.
It may not serve the political interests of some (or even most) but this is true. My apologies for stating the obvious.
This would be a face saving approach for both Obama and the GOP idiots, as both could claim that the matter was taken out of their hands by the Supremes. However, I doubt if Obama and Eric Holder have the intestinal fortitude to do such a bold move.
And so, we will continue to play this sorry charade.
Another element is the sanctity of contracts. The claim would be the spending was performed to avoid the US reneging on its contracts. That covers a broad scope of spending.
The reality is Obama has the weight of the options on his side. The conflicting purposes in the Constitution would give him the "tie goes to the runner" type of superior prerogative. The Tea Crackpot Congress already performed their act by legislating the expenditures, and would have to endure watching their efforts at showboating nutbucketry being marginalized.
I think this would greatly benefit Obama, and hang the Newtface on the GO-Tea, especially Cantor.
rw005g- the clause "including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questions" is your actual problem that you conveniently overlooked.
The clarity and purpose of this 14th Admend. Section 4 only is clear about funding the entry into WWI. Contextually it funds veterans, and states that America must "invest" in rebuilding Europe. The root sentence had to be written in order to write a terse and airtight law. In actuality Sect. 4 is not, but a part of the whole. Each and every 14th Amend. clause must be taken together, and you did not do this- comprehend the full and reasoned meaning of this 1917 law. (Neither did I, but I will go to the site your recommend and read...that was stellar of you to do this.)
You lost your point as you made your point.
HClinton will not foresake Obama. She is his strength to the world, and her word is directly linked to Obama. Although, Obama has lost favor- resoundingly so with Independents, Left...he is not DONE.
I am almost certain he will lose 2012, but if he calls Republicans' bluff on Debt Ceiling he will certainly help the 12 Democractic Senetor/HofR seats up for re-election in 2012.
Obama is a Constitutional Professor. I'm not worried about his ability to decode our founding document. It is arrogant to assume his cache is fully depleted when he capitulated to Republicans for extending Bush Tax Breaks. Actually, that was clever because he eliminated this from the buffet of Republican discourse and constricted their rhetoric.
Democratic Minority Whips/leadership in HofR are very weak orators, and have not elevated the media blizt surrounding this showdown for budget redux via raising the debt limit.
Obama is in a bind. A terrible place because a minority (new Tea Party Legislators) have been calling the shots. The fact that the old guard Republicans have been mouth pieces for new members, and that they have not made the new members wade through years of brinning is a dual problem: Obama's and Congress.
You bring level rationality to the discourse, but...you failed to make one point, or even stay on point. (Hey, in my role as Mango Sherbert I am all over various points, too- trying to find a voice within my own persona is posing multiple problems. Eventually I'll work out a loop of reading, fact checking and blogging- but for now I'm trying to build stamina for writing.) I understand the desire to "remap" that which is not working. From our seats in front of our singular computer we (you and Mango Sherbert) think we have solutions, but the actuality is if the solutions had been that easy then Obama would not be in his current stand-off with Republicans.
Finally, Hillary will run 2016. That is a given.
Sincerely impressed by your layered and thoughtful argument, do continue.
Annie Shay
Lefty, you're right that at some point it comes down to a decision by human beings about what they're up for and what they are not. The Republicans have been all over Obama to “lead,” saying he's not been showing leadership. I do think they're right that he hangs back sometimes and doesn't lead where he could. But this is Constitutionally a place that calls for Congress to lead and I think their claim he should do so is self-serving. They want to blame what they realize they have to do on him, but it's got to be a Congressional choice, not an Executive one, to address the budget. On this narrow matter of merely saying “we're definitively going to pay our debt,” though, Obama should step forward and be more presidential.
Paul, I'm glad to hear you agreeing. I think the bottom line is that Obama does have options, as you put it. I come back to the notion that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The President cannot protect and defend the Constitution if the only possible reading of it is to allow it to be dismantled in the way we're going.