Do any DU'ers know who the Presidents lawyers are

Because I just heard on the news that his Council still is saying to the democrats in Congress THERE WILL NOT be a 14th Amendment option period.

Really difficult to find:

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

(Don't drive like my bruddah.)

on this 14th Ammendment thing. Since there seems to be quite a bit of debate about whether or not Obama can do it, I am starting to believe that the Republicans are trying to push him into doing it so they can Impeach him for going aginast the Constitution. There would be hearings and lots of debates and it would tie up the government even more - just like the Clinton Impeachment.

It wouldn't matter that the Senate wouldn't convict him. That didn't stop the GOP from Impeaching Clinton for lying. They would have their Constitutional lawyers and the Democrats would have their Constitutional lawyers and on and on it would go.

Grover Norquist would get his wish - to make it impossible for the Democratic President to get anything done.

Sure.

while Obama is President is what they have been doing all along. what else are they doing? Certainly nothing that is beneficial to the country.

Plus, methinks all the stupid teabagsters living on (or about to live on) SS and who rely on Medicare have just realized they've been played for suckeR$.

Pathetic.

http://newsone.com/nation/washington-watch/newsonestaff4/tim-scott-obama-impeachment/

The Tea Party is warning about figurative "blood in the streets" if it's invoked.

It's not a tinfoil hat thing - it's their best chance to try to rattle the impeachment saber.

more likely from Bill Daley than from Harold Koh.

Between White House Counsel and the fact that POTUS was a Constitutional Law professor, I'm sure they're well ahead of what the GOP/Tea Party is thinking.

They may be playing it down to force Congress to do their damned jobs and get the President something to sign.

If the 14 A was used there would be a lawsuit. The words of Obama and his lawyers would be used against them in court. Their arguments that it was legal would be destroyed by their own comments.

They have not said anything that would undercut a potential 14th Amendment action. They have very carefully parsed their words.

For example, the President didn't say, "It's not constitutional," or "My lawyers have advised me it's unconstitutional." Instead, he said, "And there have been some suggestions that a President could use that language to basically ignore this debt ceiling rule, which is a statutory rule. It’s not a constitutional rule. I have talked to my lawyers. They do not—they are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.

That's a very carefully worded comment. He didn't say he wouldn't do it. He said that his lawyers weren't persuaded. If he later chose to use it, this comment in no way would impact his claim that he had a right to take this action. The fact that his lawyers weren't persuaded two weeks ago that the suggestion that the President could "ignore the debt ceiling rule" was a WINNING argument. That's very different than saying that it is not a VALID argument.

I think the President is keeping all of his options open - but an important part of that is to not show his hand or to telegraph that he would be willing to use the 14th Amendment if push comes to shove.