• 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?

That reminds me of an abusive husband telling his wife, "I wouldn't beat you if you weren't forcing me to..."


If Obama attempts to raise the national debt without Congress, I would expect a quick and strong impeachment to proceed immediately. No President, for any reason should be allowed to usurp the Constitution. The lame excuse that there is some new interpretation of the 14th, section 4 is quickly stomped on by section 5.

Ever wonder if the world's stock markets were crashing along with our economy, And Obama saves the day by invoking the 14th amendment, but the republicans in the house pushed for impeachment? My thinking is it would really make congress looks like worse idiots then they are.
 
Wrong - Obama's saying "Don't force me to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling" is what's going on.

Never said that ever. Your post is as silly as your avatar.
 
Does it even matter?

We are so clearly headed to a complete implosion of the banking system and world market, it is merely a matter of a short amount of time.

We're basically paying the debt with notebook paper. The "money" we pay debt with is completely worthless, straight off the printing press.

Bull****!
 
Maybe Obama will propose a new green jobs iniative where he basically loses billions of dollars in a ill fated plan to manufacture something that first, China can build cheaper and second, that no one wants
We should never try anything new..
It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't call the result of that chaos a " recovery".
No less than I have proposed a new green Multi--billion dollar green industry--mandatory recycling--no more garbage--T. Roosevelt and Lincoln would ask paraphrasing,"What will the USA be in 100 years"..They are my inspirations..
45 straight months of private sector job growth versus Bush's 6-month/4.4 million job swoon
Or maybe he could offer up another "stimulus" and lie about " infrastructure" investments..

Should governors use ALL of their stim money to balance their budget and not spin..
Or are they spinning within the budget?
 
Ever wonder if the world's stock markets
were crashing along with our economy, And Obama saves the day by invoking the 14th amendment, but the republicans in the house pushed for impeachment? My thinking is it would really make congress looks like worse idiots then they are.

Well for the stock market to fall all Obama needs to do his tell his FED to stop QE.

I mean you realize the Stock Markets being totally propped up with the FEDs stimulus right ? Trillions in easy money so the rich and get richer.

Maybe if you understood the mechanism behind the Stock Markets "success" you would'nt make post like that.

And if Trillions in debt already spent hasn't saved the day exactly how would Obama violating the Constution save anything ?
 
The sole purpose of the debt clause of the 14th amendment was to keep the US govt from voiding debt (the validity of debt cant be questioned). Its quite a stretch to interpret this as implying a power to the President to order the Treasury to take on debt above a limit set by congress. Congress has the power to make laws. The debt limit is a law. If Obama thinks there is a conflict in the law, he should bring a case before the proper jurisidiction.

Via the SC

The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obli- [294 U.S. 330, 354] gations. The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legal and binding character of its contracts. While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists, and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign. Lynch v. United States, supra, pages 580, 582, of 292 U.S. 54 S.Ct. 840.

No one is disputing that the federal govt has a legal obligation to fulfill the contractual obligations of a debt. But saying one law requiring the govt to do something implies that the President has the power to figure out how to do it is rediculous. Congress has that power.
 
Back
Top Bottom