U.S. Constitution debt option "not available"

(Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was "not available" to President Barack Obama to avoid the Aug. 2 deadline to raise the U.S. debt ceiling.

"There are no easy ways out here. There are no tricks, there is no citing of the Constitution that suddenly allow us to borrow," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. "It's not available."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/usa-debt-whitehouse-idUSWNA477520110726

I guess then that neither hope, nor change, must be very "available" either?

:eyes:

He hates old people.

to admit, great response! :rofl: :thumbsup:

Why don't any of those reporters there make Jay Carney tell them why he thinks that?

POTUS, yeah, an attorney, but not one who's a constitutional scholar. Even the experts disagree on whether or not this would be "do-able". Clinton doesn't have all the answers. I'm thinking if it were viable, Obama would have to be considering it at this last-gasp moment. Seeing this statement makes me believe that Obama was convinced that he can't actually pursue this. Now, I have to add I think Obama needs to widen his circle of advisers in many areas, and I'd love to hear what Jonathan Turley says about this. With no disrespect to Clinton, I'd be more inclined to think Turley would understand it better.

to get Jonathan Turley on his show to address this. He has had Jonathan as a guest on his new show on Current TV so I don't think there would be a conflict.

the post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x616390

JFTR - Obama's no vote on the ceiling increase in 2006 and his failure to vote in 2007 and 2008 is probably why he doesn't want to use the 14th. In 2006 he said the need for the increase was a result of poor leadership. I wouldn't want to eat those words either - better to avoid the subject.

consider either of them the know-all-be-all expert -- would you?

In 2006 he voted against the increase. In 2007 and 2008 he didn't bother to vote.

He doesn't want this thrown in his face.

Note - in 2006 he said the need to increase the ceiling is a "failure of leadership" and that America has a "debt problem".

Maybe this time he should think of taking one for the team.

The WH said there's not a "winning argument" about the 14th Amendment. That's code word for "significant disagreement."

:shrug:

That doesnt take anything away from Congress, it just allows Obama to pay bills already passed.

Now the argument has transformed into "they've budgeted it, he's just paying for it!"

These are two entirely distinct arguments. The argument you articulate is not, to the best of knowledge, based on any putative 14th Amendment borrowing power.

*("not be questioned"... unless it seems like a good idea at the time)

The government can meet its debt obligations without raising the debt ceiling at all, in the first place. It just can't do so while funding ongoing wars, tax cuts for the rich, ag subsidies etc. etc.

It's a logical stretch to argue that "debt shall not be questioned" applies to spending which hasn't even taken place yet. In fact, it's a dead end.

Failure to incur new debt has no relevance to existing debt, since the latter can be serviced by other means.

Otherwise you could just as easily claim that failure to increase taxes would also qualify as "questioning."

The 14th A concerns itself with debt not obligations.

Instead of borrowing, he could just unilaterally impose a surtax on millionaires to pay existing bills.

Wouldn't that be as constitutionally valid as incurring more debt?

In all seriousness, the debt ceiling is an artificial construct from early last century, one we would be better off eliminating.

If Obama would use the 14th Amendment, and it was constitutional do do so, it would remove future debt ceiling authorizations from becoming hostage situations like we have now.

Congress passes a budget, then the President signs it, theres no real need to debate paying for it after the fact.

That kind of debate should come up when the budget is written.

If the president can ignore the debt ceiling, why can't he ignore the tax code?

Obama will have to decide whether to honor the budget, (and coincidentally the constitution) or the kidnappers demands.

Congress has given the president two mutually exclusive directives. One of those directives violates the constitution.

That power is specifically conferred to the Congress.

You've made this new power up out of whole-cloth.

"Congress has given the president two mutually exclusive directives. One of those directives violates the constitution."

No, and no. The Federal budget isn't a directive to the President to arrange financing.

Obama will have to unilaterally decide which, if any, elements of the budget to uphold.

and he would be obligated to prioritize servicing the debt above so-called "discretionary" or military spending. That's where the 14th Amendment comes into play, in my opinion.

But the 14th Amendment does NOT give the President the power to borrow money instead of making tough choices; that power is specifically granted to the Congress.

Exactly correct, IMO.

...an escape hatch should other options seemingly fail, but in the long term this would be disastrous, IMO, for US credit and for our national debt. We have to show our creditors that we have some kind of self control over our spending. Allowing ourselves an all-you-can-eat buffet of credit is going to inspire confidence in none of them.

Rather, I take heart that both the President and that snake-fucker whathisname have both said that default is not an option. It's a shitty situation, no doubt about it, but even in a very bad, very fucked up situation, there are always worse (if only slightly so) avenues to go down. I think invoking a certain perspective on the 14th Amendment is a rose-lined path to ruin which, like other options, only really looks attractive because of how fucking dysfunctional our government already is.

PB

That's not the case. 14 says we have to pay our debt. We will - in part because of 14A and in part because Geithner is not a lunatic. But the gov't will have to meet all other payments without borrowing more money. 14A doesn't say we can borrow debt without question, only that existing debt will be paid. Who knows what will get cut, but it won't be debt interest.

Setting aside the meaning of the 14th Amendment as to existing debt, there is no argument that the 14th Amendment authorizes new borrowing to pay for new spending; the funding for ongoing wars, for example, is not "debt".

It's debatable - obviously.

But I fail to understand how it helps to unilaterally take this possible option off the table. :shrug:

...like ON the 2nd, if everything is as it sits right now. Even if this is true, the problem would be that the damage would have already been done if the 2nd comes and goes and they're still trying to find Boehner on the golf course (hint: try the 19th hole). By then, the S&P and Moody's folks will have already downgraded us (as if those wheels aren't already in motion), and the rest of the world would be going "WTF?"

would just do this, to show the American people once and for all that he's a strong leader. Let the republicon Congress move for impeachment if they like, it would only further prove that they are fixated on ruining Obama, rather than "creating jobs." Plus, it would simply crash and burn in the Senate.

I do agree he would probably only be able to do this during the case of a default. Dare the republicants to pass a clean debt cieling bill. If they refuse, and let the country default, pull the 14th during the clear national emergency.