Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner: I'll Destroy The American Economy If I Don't Get My Way (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  joesig - because he actually believes it would (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    not be constitutional? That's my guess.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:55:44 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ok...can you explain the constitutional reasoning? (0+ / 0-)

      The 14th Amendment seems quite clear to me, and to a number of constitutional scholars I've been reading.  It's not clear what would happen if Obama said the 14th Amendment says what it looks like is says.  First, there are questions of who would have standing to challenge it.  And if you're wondering if there is precedent, or if the Supreme Court has ever taken up similar 14th Amendment issues?:
      In 1935, the Supreme Court held that despite the Civil War context, the amendment clearly referred to all federal debt.

      "While [the 14th Amendment] was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation," the majority wrote in Perry v. U.S. "We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

      The law at issue, which tried to override the validity of a bond offering, "went beyond the congressional power," the Court ruled, setting a precedent that has not been overturned.

      Because the government borrows based on its full faith, Congress doesn't have the authority to undermine that confidence by reneging on its obligation to its lenders, the ruling declared.

      "To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," reads the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. "This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government."

      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

      by joesig on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 05:19:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  joesig - I agree that there are opposing views (0+ / 0-)

        on this issue and constitutional scholars will opine on both sides. It would appear that the POTUS' view falls on the side that the 14th does not give him the authority to raise the debt limit without Congressional approval. His view has been stated with stark clarity and no wiggle room, which I don't fully understand from a negotiating point of view.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:50:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not from a negotiating point of view.... (0+ / 0-)

          a logical point of view, a political point of view, a words mean what they say they mean view, a Supreme Court precedent view.....

          I'm not a fan of "all views are equal", whether it's teaching creationism or allowing the GOP to destroy the credit rating of the United States.  

          We are hoping against hope that the president has learned not to negotiate with himself.  On this issue, he has clearly not learned that lesson.

          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

          by joesig on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 12:43:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Article 2 Section 1 - US Constitution (0+ / 0-)
        Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
        Article 4 of the 14th Amendment is certainly part of the constitutional framework he is sworn to uphold. Arguably, since there are legal avenues to avoid default which are short of breaking the law, it is those avenues rather than defiance of congress that the president should pursue. Platinum coin Seigniorage, and issuance of "consols". Personally, I like the Platinum coin Seigniorage idea but not limited to a couple of trillion dollar coins. The best bet would be the $60T coin proposal or even larger. Retire all Treasury bonds and move to full reserves in banking. The fed (treasury) pays 25bp on reserves - that would be $40Billion/year if those treasuries were converted back to reserves. As it is, total debt service on treasury was $359Billion in fiscal 2012. That was a $320Billion gift from the American people to the bond holders (mostly the 1% of the 1%). Isn't that special????

        We are an amazingly clueless society when it comes to the economy, and especially when it comes to the monetary system, which is entirely misunderstood - much to the extreme detriment of society. But we do have the excuse that our media no longer practices journalism, having substituted taking stenography from the financial elites.

        •  I'm not sure I understood a word.... (0+ / 0-)

          of what you wrote...but I do like the idea of a $60 trillion dollar coin.

          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

          by joesig on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:49:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site