• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can President Obama Unilaterally Raise the Debt Ceiling?

Threegoofs said:
That's what he has to say.

But when Jack Lew comes into his office and says- 'I need to write the interest check on the bonds', you know damn well he's gonna pull out his trillion dollar coin.
Click to expand...

(They can't let Boehner know that though :) )
 
poweRob said:
HOw does a demcratic president lead a house full of tempertantrum throwing republicans who admit that their only goal was to stand against him by all means necessary?
Click to expand...

Not by making excuses like that.....
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, yeah. He should be impeached for....stuff.

I bet you have a long list of impeachable 'offenses' to list. Spare us the details.

But in non-bizarro land, impeaching a President for exercising Good judgement in not letting the nation default would be absolutely inexcusable.
Click to expand...

Not only that, the Senate would never convict him. He would be acquitted.
 
It is a SCOTUS issue on the 14th and the POTUS knows it. Can'tor wait for Issa's hearing(s) heading into the 2014 election.
Meanwhile, in 2013, Mr. Obama has my permission to procede to negate Repubs from crashing a fourth straight Christmas.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
No dodge at all.

The House passed legislation and the President and Senate have enacted a partial shutdown of the government demanding changes to that legislation.
Click to expand...

And since when is a CR the place to force the repeal of a law? What kind of Govt. do you think we have? What if the Dems had threatened to do the same to Bush if a assault weapons ban and a gun control law was not enacted along with the CR? Would you be feeling the same way? Because if the Dems get the House that is what they will surely do. I hope you don't change your mind about the tactic.
 
aberrant85 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/business/wall-st-fears-go-beyond-shutdown.html?hp&_r=0

If the debt ceiling is not raised by [Oct 17], the Treasury estimates it will be left with about only $30 billion in cash, which would be used up in a matter of days.

As a result, economists and investors have quietly begun to explore the options the White House might have in the event Congress fails to act.

The most widely discussed strategy would be for President Obama to invoke authority under the 14th Amendment and essentially order the federal government to keep borrowing, an option that was endorsed by former President Bill Clinton during an earlier debt standoff in 2011.

And in recent days, prominent Democrats like Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, have urged the White House to seriously consider such a route, even if it might provoke a threat of impeachment from House Republicans and ultimately require the Supreme Court to rule on its legitimacy.

Other potential October surprises range from the logistically forbidding, like prioritizing payments, issuing i.o.u.’s or selling off gold and other assets, to more fanciful ideas, like minting a trillion-dollar platinum coin.

The trillion dollar coin idea, reminiscent of Mr. Burns, is based on a law that says that the US can mint a coin of pure platinum in any denomination, essentially giving us $1T extra to use in case of a looming default.

If the effects of a debt default would be so grievous to the economy, would Obama see it necessary to use his authority to raise the debt ceiling himself?

And where would it go from there?
Click to expand...

You on a posting binge? Gonna run around here pissing and moaning that your precious free Obamacare isn't getting to you quick enough?
 
iguanaman said:
And since when is a CR the place to force the repeal of a law? What kind of Govt. do you think we have? What if the Dems had threatened to do the same to Bush if a assault weapons ban and a gun control law was not enacted along with the CR? Would you be feeling the same way? Because if the Dems get the House that is what they will surely do. I hope you don't change your mind about the tactic.
Click to expand...

Regular order is what should be demanded from the American people....Answer why Reid won't appoint conferee's?
 
iguanaman said:
And since when is a CR the place to force the repeal of a law?
Click to expand...

Well, ask Reid. Being he is the one that has stopped all yearly budget talks.
 
j-mac said:
Regular order is what should be demanded from the American people....Answer why Reid won't appoint conferee's?
Click to expand...

Because there will be no negotiating on passing the CR that the Republicans asked for. The Republicans set the amount of the CR and the Dems agreed to it. What more can they expect to get?
 
iguanaman said:
Because there will be no negotiating on passing the CR that the Republicans asked for. The Republicans set the amount of the CR and the Dems agreed to it. What more can they expect to get?
Click to expand...

Oh BS! All you did here was find a way to continue to say that demo's won't negotiate. Regular order demands that the house sent up a bill, the senate changed it, then sent it back to the house. At that point they are supposed to go to conference to settle out the difference...So I guess you are just saying no....
 
j-mac said:
Oh BS! All you did here was find a way to continue to say that demo's won't negotiate. Regular order demands that the house sent up a bill, the senate changed it, then sent it back to the house. At that point they are supposed to go to conference to settle out the difference...So I guess you are just saying no....
Click to expand...

There will be no negotiations pertaining to legislation already passed and signed by the President in a budget. It is out of order.

Senate-2103-CR-proposal_BVfT21VCIAA8Fty_large-289x500.png
 
iguanaman said:
There will be no negotiations pertaining to legislation already passed and signed by the President in a budget. It is out of order.
Click to expand...

Your skewed, biased blog site generated graph aside, you truly must be living in a fantasy land where liberal democrats just make up things...It is not out of the norm in any way to leverage changes in fights like this, in fact that is how things happen.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nope, don't have a long list. Just Libya.

And it is NOT good judgement for the President to TAKE more power for themselves and TAKE power away from those that do have the power. No matter the reason. If our legislative body can't get their act together enough to pass a spending bill then we DESERVE to take a hit for this. Its called taking responsibility and accepting the consequences for ones actions. And frankly people need to learn this. And every single person in this country would be at fault for LETTING our legislative body for acting like spoiled little brats. Both Republicans AND Democrats are to blame here. Instead of demanding that the President violate the Constitution you should be clamoring at your congressmen and senators to get thier act together, and if they don't vote them the heck out of office. Too many congressmen and senators keep getting re-elected when they should have been booted long ago. And that is The Peoples fault.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this. However, here is how I see this playing out:

1) The president cannot enact laws. Congress does that.

2) However, the executive branch can enforce existing laws.

3) Congress passed a spending bill a while back. Actually, Congress has passed a lot of spending bills, along with continuing resolutions.

4) Under those laws and continuing resolutions, the government has made purchases.

5) The government owes money for what it has already purchased.

6) The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that we must pay our debts.

7) In unilaterally raising the debt ceiling, Obama will cite the 14th Amendment, and the need to enforce it, as well as enforce paying for goods and services already purchased.

8) This will ultimately go to the Supreme Court, which will decide if the USA is going to pay it's bills or be a deadbeat.

9) If the USA decides it's going to be a deadbeat, then a lot of people and nations that invested in the USA are going to be pissed.......

10) But China is going to be even more pissed, and will probably stop sending crap that doesn't work over here. The USA will have to manufacture it's own stuff, which will be of much better quality.......

Hmmm, not a bad scenario. LOL.
 
iguanaman said:
Because there will be no negotiating on passing the CR that the Republicans asked for. The Republicans set the amount of the CR and the Dems agreed to it. What more can they expect to get?
Click to expand...

Once again, a CR is a Clear Resolution. Republicans are not calling for a CR, the dems are. They (the dems) want the condition that Obamacare be delayed a year stripped (but they double dog promise to discuss it later :mrgreen:).
 
The TEAsshole anarchists want their own government to shut down ... does anyone think they give a **** about the world economy?
If it comes to default the President will have to do what he has to do to save the republic and the world economy.
The very next day he should file censure and treason charges against the TEAssholes in congress.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, a CR is a Clear Resolution. Republicans are not calling for a CR, the dems are. They (the dems) want the condition that Obamacare be delayed a year stripped (but they double dog promise to discuss it later :mrgreen:).
Click to expand...

Actually, both sides call it a CR. It stands for Continuing Resolution, not Clear Resolution. BTW, there were 8 CRs during the Reagan administration, and one shutdown which lasted for 11 days.
 
danarhea said:
I agree with you on this. However, here is how I see this playing out:

1) The president cannot enact laws. Congress does that.

2) However, the executive branch can enforce existing laws.

3) Congress passed a spending bill a while back. Actually, Congress has passed a lot of spending bills, along with continuing resolutions.

4) Under those laws and continuing resolutions, the government has made purchases.

5) The government owes money for what it has already purchased.

6) The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that we must pay our debts.

7) In unilaterally raising the debt ceiling, Obama will cite the 14th Amendment, and the need to enforce it, as well as enforce paying for goods and services already purchased.

8) This will ultimately go to the Supreme Court, which will decide if the USA is going to pay it's bills or be a deadbeat.

9) If the USA decides it's going to be a deadbeat, then a lot of people and nations that invested in the USA are going to be pissed.......

10) But China is going to be even more pissed, and will probably stop sending crap that doesn't work over here. The USA will have to manufacture it's own stuff, which will be of much better quality.......

Hmmm, not a bad scenario. LOL.
Click to expand...

Except that the 14th also states that Congress may enforce the 14th by appropriate legislation. Not The President. Congress. If he does this then he had damn well better be impeached.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Except that the 14th also states that Congress may enforce the 14th by appropriate legislation. Not The President. Congress. If he does this then he had damn well better be impeached.
Click to expand...

Yes, it says Congress may, but if Congress doesn't pay America's bills, then they have broken the law. Period.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Except that the 14th also states that Congress may enforce the 14th by appropriate legislation. Not The President. Congress. If he does this then he had damn well better be impeached.
Click to expand...

What an awesome scenario. The House GOP impeaching a sitting President for averting an economic disaster.

I can't think of a better way to permanently banish the GOP from political relevance forever.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, it says Congress may, but if Congress doesn't pay America's bills, then they have broken the law. Period.
Click to expand...

Then boot em out. Send them to jail. That is what enforcement means for our executive branch. It does not mean to take more power and ignore the Constitution.
 
Threegoofs said:
What an awesome scenario. The House GOP impeaching a sitting President for averting an economic disaster.

I can't think of a better way to permanently banish the GOP from political relevance forever.
Click to expand...

He would not be impeached for "averting economic disaster". He would be impeached for violating the Constitution. Treason.
 
We're in debt 'up to our eyeballs'.

Solution:

More debt!

Conclusion:

Logic and reason are no longer being employed in the US of A.

The fact is we're on a train heading off the tracks, and NOBODY can stop it.

Fact: stop the QE and the economy tanks (recent history proves this)

Fact: continue the QE and the economy tanks (economics 101 and Weimar prove this)

So they will try to keep the train on the tracks as long as they can; so expect the ceiling to be raised, however it plays out.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Then boot em out. Send them to jail. That is what enforcement means for our executive branch. It does not mean to take more power and ignore the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I see it differently. I see it as using executive authority to EXECUTE the laws. That's why they call it the EXECUTIVE branch of government.

This is not about appropriating money to purchase goods and services. Congress already did that, and now they want to violate the law by not paying the bills. The president would merely be enforcing Congress' decision to spend the money, by paying the bills that Congress incurred when making the decision to spend that money. Existing law does NOT allow the USA to be a deadbeat, and the law must be enforced.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I've pondered the constitutionality of a debt ceiling in the first place. We're constitutionally barred from defaulting, but when spending is mandated by law and a borrowing limit exists, that leaves a situation in which default is necessary. Which is exactly what Congress has done, they've passed legislation throughout our nations history that has created this spending problem. You can't just stop paying for things your own laws say you're going to pay for.
Click to expand...

Are we constitutionally barred from spending 3 times our means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom