Bill Clinton would raise debt ceiling, bypass Congress

Source: James Oliphant

Bill Clinton would raise debt ceiling, bypass Congress

Bill Clinton says if he were president, he would not hesitate to raise the debt-ceiling himself under authority he argues is granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The two-term Democrat, who squared off with Republicans during two government shutdowns, contended in an interview Monday that the 14th Amendment allows for the president to ensure the nation’s debt is covered. He said he would “force the courts to stop me.”

“I think the Constitution is clear, and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said in a talk with Joe Conason of the National Memo.

Whether the 14th Amendment does, indeed, provide the president with the power to unilaterally raise--or ignore--the debt ceiling has been the subject of fierce debate among legal scholars. The language of Section 4 of the amendment states that the “validity of the public debt . . . shall not be questioned,” leading Clinton and some advocates to argue that the executive branch can take steps to ensure that the nation does not default on its obligations.



Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-clinton-debt-ceiling-20110719,0,816413.story

---

Bill has a proven success record on improving the economy, balancing budgets, and dealing with a RATpubliCON controlled Congress.

I think what he has to say should be taken very very seriously by Pres. Obama

Who wants to buy that piece of debt?

I think Bill's premise is correct in that essentially Congress voted once to create the debt and now they demand to vote again to see if they want to pay the debt - that would create the Constitutional Crisis

Why isn't compounding interest new debt?

Chicken or the Egg

Is the Law Creating the Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional because it would force the United States to default the the Debt?

The DEMs can simply not agree to the HUGE Cuts in Social Programs and further shifting of the US Tax Burden on to the Middle Class and the ensuing Default would render the Debt Ceiling UnConstitutional

The TeaFarty controlled House doesn't have the power they think they do

That the only way to pay our bills was incur more debt? Why wouldn't it seem rational that any entity could make the decision to spend less?

Maybe the fact is we've grown things to the point where it has a life of it's own and we can only ride it. Maybe the constitution simply doesn't fit today's reality.

However, you may be interested in Alexander Hamilton, esp. when he insisted (successfully) that the new federal government should VOLUNTARILY take on and pay off the debt incurred by the states, in order to improve the credit of the federal government.

It has been hailed almost universally as a brilliant move on the part of Hamilton. Frankly, I don't know enough to agree or disagree.

We need to spend less money. Then we wouldn't have to borrow more, the more you borrow the more interest you must pay. The more interest you pay the more you borrow, that is the reason we are in this now.

That were passed through "reconciliation", bypassing any filibuster/checks and balances.

Even worse, since there is no way to distinguish which debt issued after August 2 is "above the limit", all US Government debt issued after that date
will be of questionable legitimacy in investors' eyes. If they fail to raise the debt limit, they will even have trouble rolling over the retiring bonds
under the debt limit, with any notion of possible violation of the debt limit law floating around. So Obama better clearly state that this 14th amendment
business is a non-starter and the debt limit won't be raised without the congressional approval, if he doesn't want to risk a complete freeze on the
treasury bond market after August 2. That is just crazy to suggest that US will be issuing debt which may be later annulled by a court decision. Bill
Clinton is just being out-of-his-mind senile suggesting such crap.

The Debt Ceiling Law would be Unconstitutional

All the laws creating the Debt were enacted legally by the US Government. Only the Debt Ceiling Law poses a threat to the US Government from fulfilling the Constitutional Obligations

The Supreme Court has addressed the public debt clause only once, in 1935, in the case of Perry v. United States. The court observed only that the clause confirmed the “fundamental principle” that Congress may not “alter or destroy” debts already incurred.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=1

And no reasonable investor would base his strategy on a presumption about what such decision might be. I would certainly not be buying any
US Treasury bonds after August 2, unless it was made clear to me that there is no way their legitimacy could be questioned in court. And the
extra-congressional increase in debt based on uncertain constitutionality, as suggested by Bill Clinton, would give plenty of grounds for such
questioning. I doubt many potential investors would wager their own money on their trust in the Supreme Court. That "brilliant" 14th amendment
workaround is such a non-starter it is silly even to talk about it. It is worse than silly, it is damaging to US creditworthiness if US President even
mentions it.

to fund it - since you have repeatedly argued on the perceived value of the Markets

But I think the learned scholars have pointed out quite eloquently it is Unconstitutional NOT to honor the Debt - as in Treasury Bonds. How exactly you equate Defaulting out of this conversation is still a mystery to me

And he is correct on this. http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/330/case.html

suggestion such a non-starter which no one will touch with a ten-foot pole? This 14th amendment business is just ridiculous hubris.
Nobody will even consider it seriously, let alone actually attempt such a thing. That is my definitive prediction - you can take that
to the bank. In less than two weeks we all will know who is right on that. No need to waste breath on pointless arguing, is there?

Perry v. United States http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/330/case.html

Court would uphold it.

Meaning they would decline to rule.

If Obama simply paid the debts, the Supreme Court might consider it moot and possibly a political matter.

Of course, we have, let's admit it, a partisan, Republican majority on the Court. So it might try to get a word in even on a very political matter.

like they did for Bush v. Gore. This court is at least as partisan as that one, probably far more so.

It is likely that members of the Supreme Court have already warned Obama not to do it.

he does not mention it. Maybe it is his ace in the hole, maybe he already knows that dog won't hunt.

I think Bill has a point

Pres. Obama could equally argue that by Congress and the Senate / Dem Pukes, NOT REACHING a consensus constitutes a Constitutional Crisis.

Actually the RATpubliCON TeaFarty House members DO NOT have the power they think they do. The Senate DEMs can simply NOT AGREE to the House demands and the President would be lawfully obligated to protect the Constitution

had just come to his attention; and an article on the 14th amendment was written by, guess who? A Republican, lovers of the unitary executive that they are, at least when a Republican is squatting in the Oval Office.

However, at about the same time that Grassley did that, Obama took the 14th amendment issue off the table, which, iMO, he had no legal right to do, given his oath of office.

Only Congress can raise the debt ceiling, given the Constitution of the U.S. says Congress has all the legislative power of the U.S. This is not news. We all know that neither the POTUS nor the SCOTUS can pass a law.

However, Congress authorizes going into debt every time it passes a bill, or fails to revoke a bill, that requires the Executive Branch to spend money that the U.S. Treasury does not have and cannot raise.

See Perry v. United States http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/330/case.html and replies 30 and 34.

The Constitution says nothing about a debt ceiling. No reason to assume the Framers intended that one come into being. I guess it would be interesting to see when it started and why, but I am not up for that at the moment.

Unless you presume the founders expected Congress to authorize the president to borrow unlimited amounts, which is crazy.

and why the debt ceiling nonsense began:

"So how did we end up with this system anyway? According to a thorough report from the Congressional Research Service, Congress used to authorize each and every one of the Treasury's debt sales. Then, in 1917, to ease financingfor the United States' entry into World War I, it set an overall limit—the debt ceiling—and let Treasury issue as many Liberty Bonds as it needed to within that limit."

The debt ceiling practice was intended to help the President incur debt without running back to Congress every minute, not to tie his hands. As usual, Rethugs pervert everything.

get his plan passed would be taking it on himself to say something like this of his own accord.

conceding the 14th am. may require raising of the debt ceiling.

and we are not hearing Obama speak to it or why he will not apply it in this situation.

Obama's biggest fear is being disliked by people. He has a deep-seated need to compromise to prevent disapproval from others. It all stems from his father problems.

J

He couldn't do that. Neither could Obama. The president can't borrow money without the consent of Congress. PERIOD.

They cannot come back way later and say "Sorry, we can't pay that debt", due to some arbitrary "debt ceiling" created by Congress in the first place.

That certainly makes sense to me. You not so much?

They didn't create debt then. They left if up to Congress at a later time to deal with.

The fundamental reason the folks who believe in this 14th amendment hoax are in error is that they somehow think the President is entitled to borrow money on his own but is being unconstitutionally stopped by the ceiling.

The president doesn't have his own authority. The ceiling is just the full amount Congress authorized. Congress authorized $14.3 trillion in borrowing. Anything beyond that doesn't have authorization.

Also, Congress isn't saying they can't pay the debt. They are fighting over how.

President Obama has stated that the problem is paying the debt incurred for money already spent. At least that is what I recall him saying.

We can continue to pay the already incurred debt. We just can't borrow any more money to do it unless Congress authorizes more.

Nothing in the case you cite or the 14th Amendment says a word about the president's authority to borrow money.

I miss the 90s.

he wanted Gramm Leach on his desk immediately. And NAFTA. And welfare cuts. And, and.

And he did whisper to Ryan to let him (Clinton) know if Ryan wanted his (Clinton's) help in passing Ryan's abominable plan.

He has a brain, that's for sure, but his balls had nothing to do with anything besides his being disgraced repeatedly, the second impeachment in U.S. history, messing up American history classes and texts forevermore, Dummya's ability to run on restoring honor to the WH, etc.

on Rachel tonight that said this could not be done until there was an extreme national emergency. He implied that Obama could do it after the debt ceiling deadline of Aug 3 if it looked like the country was collapsing.

that would provide sufficient legal cover

or not. What matters is that nobody would buy any debt whose legitimacy is questionable. Certainly not until all such questions
are completely resolved in courts, which could take quite a while - long enough for US debt market to collapse and take the world
economy along with it.

be more damaging than our ability to borrow than a default.

Nothing is questionable about the legitimacy of debt incurred pursuant to various laws of Congress that authorized spending, the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and opinion of the SCOTUS AND the Consitutional power and duty of the Chief Executive of the United States. You can hardly get more legitmate than all three branches.

BTW, you do not have a crystal ball and therefore have no way of knowing who will or will not buy it. The debt would be amply authorized, as stated above, and we would also be cutting expenses and raising revenues. We would be financially much sounder than the last time we borrowed, esp. if Obama could break his war habit.

he did say something like we may have a Constitutional crisis if Obama acted before an Emergency. By that, I took him to mean that, unless Obama waited until he could move under some Act of Congress, we might have a separation of powers issue. However, the Constitution gives the President powers, too, and mandates that he take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution.

The Constitution does not require members of Congress to take the same oath, though they do, as do all federal employees now. However, the Constitution places that power on the President, along with the power to execute the laws of the U.S., which laws include the Constitution.

No Act of Congress, such as the Emergency Powers Act, trumps the Constitution. And the SCOTUS has already held that that, per the 14th Amendment, Congress has no power to refuse to pay obligations it has incurred via its prior votes.

Perry v. United States (1935).

(Note the date. We were in deep doo financially then as well.)

By virtue of the Constitution, Obama has a duty to defend and protect the Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS. That's why, for one example, the President got involved in integrating local schools after Brown v. Bd of Ed. Ergo, Obama has a duty to order Treasury to meet the obligations of the U.S., as and when they come due.

not sure if Obama is going to do end up doing this but at least its out there now.

if he doesn't want to see the Congress' failure to raise the debt limit followed by freezing of US debt market. Obama can do what he wants,
but who is going to buy the debt which could be later annulled by a US Supreme Court decision? Not me.

and strategize. I would not be the least surprised this is what's happening. Big Dog is a Democrat first and foremost, and although he might've not really appreciated Obama during the campaign, he's not going to let a Democratic President get harmed, either.

Dems are united on the power issue behind Obama. In fact, if anything, I wish he had never taken the 14th amendment issue off the table.

Laptop seems to have indigestion this morning.

It should not appropriate it.

Under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the authority "To borrow money on the credit of the United States; . . .
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence 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;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1

And under the 14th Amendment,

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. 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.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

Seems to me, all debts must be paid under the 14th, and Congress has the authority to make the debts and pay them. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to default on debt once Congress has made it.

They seem to be stuck to me.

That should certainly include the debt owed to the Social Security fund.

Congress should stop wasting time and start discussing how it is going to use its authority to levy taxes to pay this debt.

I wonder how much they could collect if they just imposed an across-the-board tax of $100 on every living American beginning youngest to oldest? Seems to me that they could do that for a few years and it might help.

If the rich are so hateful that they refuse to pay a fair share, $100 per person per year should be something just about anyone could manage. That is less than $10 per month.

as well as Replies 29, 30 and 34.

to put through the cuts the GOP is begging for and this way he can blame them for it.

I know this is terrible, but seeing "Bill Clinton" and "bypass" in the same headline makes me chuckle.

Yes, my ticket to Hell is already punched.

...up the debt to even more astronomical levels. How can anyone say with a straight face, that it would not? Moreso, a move like this is NOT likely going to inspire confidence from our creditors. We print all the money we want and now...we raise our own credit limit without any sort of oversight?

Good lord.

PB

simply doing away with the debt ceiling--as Moody's has suggested. It doesn't add more spending, just allows paying for what Congress has already spent.