Tim Geithner: 14th Amendment Says Debt 'Shall Not Be Questioned'

WASHINGTON -- At a briefing with reporters on Wednesday, President Obama was asked whether he believed that the debt ceiling was constitutional or whether the 14th Amendment required the government to meet all of its obligations regardless of the debt-limit statute.

Obama dodged the question. "I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here," he said about the debt ceiling and a question on the war in Libya.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, however, is less afraid of wearing that hat. At a Politico Playbook breakfast on May 25, Geithner was asked by host Mike Allen about the negotiations over default and the debt ceiling.

"I think there are some people who are pretending not to understand it, who think there's leverage for them in threatening a default," Geithner said. "I don't understand it as a negotiating position. I mean really think about it, you're going to say that-- can I read you the 14th amendment?"

Geithner whipped out his handy pocket-sized Constitution. Allen tried to brush it aside. "We'll stipulate the 14th Amendment," he said.

"No, I want to read this one thing," Geithner insisted.

"It's paper clipped!" Allen observed, noting that Geithner's copy of the Constitution was clipped so that it would open directly to the passage in question.

"'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion' -- this is the important thing -- 'shall not be questioned," Geithner read.

Watch Geithner:

"So as a negotiating strategy you say: 'If you don't do things my way, I'm going to force the United States to default--not pay the legacy of bills accumulated by my predecessors in Congress.' It's not a credible negotiating strategy, and it's not going to happen," Geithner insisted.

On Tuesday, HuffPost reported that rank-and-file Senate Democrats are increasingly looking at the 14th Amendment as a solution to the default impasse. The Treasury Department says that on Aug. 2, the government will no longer have the ability to meet its obligations without raising the debt ceiling and will default, sending capital and bond markets into chaos.

The conservative blog RedState suggested Thursday that if Obama embarked on such a course, House Republicans would be wise to begin impeachment proceedings. The Democratic-controlled Senate would be unlikely to go along, however, embroiling Washington in a constitutional crisis. Republicans impeached a Democratic president in 1998 and suffered politically for the overreach. Impeaching the president for insisting on paying past bills on time could be equally devastating for the GOP.

Nearly a month before Geithner read the Constitution to a gathering of reporters, Bruce Bartlett floated the option of 14th Amendment invocation in The Fiscal Times.

The news that Senate Democrats were considering the option was reported on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Current TV Tuesday. Watch:

Comments

[rjohn44547]

01:52 PM on 07/24/2011

POLITICAL POSTURING

[Cosmaigne]

08:46 AM on 07/30/2011

While it may be arguable whether the Executive branch has the Constitutional power to do anything unilaterally to raise the debt ceiling, it would seem that the Legislative branch's _failure_ to do so would certainly be a breach of its 14th Amendment responsibilities.
Therefore, as part of a lawsuit brought by (why not?) the Executive branch, let the Supreme Court (Judiciary branch) issue an INJUNCTION to raise the debt ceiling until Congress can properly exercise its Constitutional obligations.

[blcayce]

05:16 PM on 07/23/2011

I reckon that we are all going down then. And everyone will suffer.......this has become a class war of the have's and have not's........Give the Native Americans back thier land and it's every man for himself.

[johnsonbrown555]

04:57 PM on 07/07/2011

I guess he will be tossed in prison with obamaaass

[Me Joe]

09:31 AM on 07/07/2011

ALL the 14th Amendment says, is that the *VALIDITY* of the debt shall not be questioned. Is it a valid debt? Yes. End of story. This does NOT give the President authority to supersede Congress, as the REST of the Constitution says, no branch shall have power over another!! Read the Federalist Papers for crying out loud.

This President is reckless and dangerous, thinks he has complete power over everyone. He does NOT. If he usurps the powers of Congress, that is a "high crime" that deserves impeachment. Maybe the liberal nuts have forgotten, each branch is Equal...hence the "checks and balances."

How the heck can ANYONE argue that we need MORE debt?? Honestly...can you afford to owe 1000 times your income? 100,000 times? You can't. So why do you think it's OK for this country to do it? Especially when we've spent $300,000 per JOB in the stimulus package, and still have 9% unemployment? Blame conservatives for this? I don't think so.

Where are the numbers NOW versus Jan 19, 2009? The deficit has skyrocketed. The debt is up 35%. Gas prices up 100%. Sorry, liberals living in la-la land, but this all happened under OBAMA. And we have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the WORLD...

It's simple: NO more spending. NO more debt. No more, no more, no more. We are not self-reliant anymore. Too many wussy people who think Gov't is the answer to everything.

NO MORE.

[BRAINS4USA]

12:51 PM on 07/07/2011

So what do you think validity means in this context? Promises must be met - payments must be made. Prez can do his thing Game Set Match Obama Thats it bye bye

[iceman4938]

05:47 PM on 07/07/2011

>This President is reckless and dangerous, thinks he has complete power over everyone. He >does NOT. If he usurps the powers of Congress, that is a "high crime" that deserves >impeachmen­t.

Umm...I thought this was a discussion of Obama, not George W "Unitary Executive Theory" Bush

[Syndrum]

07:55 AM on 07/07/2011

all this partisan bickering in the comments is amusing and also very effective in losing the focus from the real question:

Should the government, the budgetary powers that be, have the unilateral, unchecked right to run our country into perpetual debt?

Perpetual debt serves two ends: to enrich the lenders and enslave the debtors
By continuously raising the debt ceiling instead of confronting and solving our budgetary issues, we are only digging our hole deeper and tightening the noose around our necks. When are we going to wake up and realize we need to live within our means? For that, we all need to make sacrifices...

[BSinVegas]

03:54 PM on 07/07/2011

Fantastic response, but it will be lost on most because they believe the only way to live is to be in debt.

[Winston Smith]

09:37 PM on 07/28/2011

Are you a wizard ?

[Winston Smith]

09:24 PM on 07/28/2011

Perpetual debt, is not a big deal as long as the economy is growing and we can meet the payments. It does not hurt us to run perpetual debt we have had great booms...and ALL the growth we have experienced since WWII has been while we are carrying debt.

Corporations carry perpetual debt.

What we need to work on is demand and Jobs...then the debt will get swamped by growth as it always has.

[Maureen Mo Hallett]

05:37 AM on 07/07/2011

These Republicans crack me up.They have decided that they are not going to give an inch on anything but want compromise out of the Dems.Thats no way to solve problems in Washington.It takes compromise on both sides of the isle which is what a politician is good at "the art of the deal" but now adays they want it all.Dems are willing to cut on so many programs that are important to them.Now Republicans have to be willing to raise taxes to get in more revenue!! The debt ceiling must be raised and to even bring up impeachment is disgusting.

[unicorn1440]

12:11 AM on 07/07/2011

So let us have the Dem party control our debt limit BUT they can not even pass a budget for the last 2 years

[unicorn1440]

12:08 AM on 07/07/2011

And the Senate Dem. have not passed a Budget in two years What is wrong there Harry Reid

[meitis345534067]

11:48 PM on 07/06/2011

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
This is the part he refers to. It's with regards to surpressing insurection. Tim is a D__K.

[Dahbur Yasser]

10:36 PM on 07/06/2011

I think if worst come worst ,that the president should exercise that right when the republicans and not being bipartisan in good fate of the people and ,by the people .The republicans got us into this mess ,because of greed and money. people do not forget who got into this worst and desultory recession economy bushenomic-replicans!!!

[abinc]

08:52 PM on 07/06/2011

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man can be king. I understand that without increasing the debt ceiling, we are told the nation will be in default on obligations on 2 August 2011. I also understand that the 14th amendment requires all just public debt to be paid. I further understand that BO wants to go around congress and invoke the 14th amendment as justification for raising the debt ceiling by executive fiat. Except that by raising the debt ceiling we are essentially devaluing our currency. This arrangement becomes a house of cards that is doomed to fall. Foreign countries are buying up our debt, and when they stop buying -- because the debt is becoming worth less, then what? I can see the 14th amendment argument, but I'll bet there is a way around it: government has already issued IOUs in lieu of payments. Yes, that sucks, but it gave breathing room until better fiscal reform could be implemented.

[doctor4kids]

01:04 PM on 07/07/2011

President Obama specifically said he didn't want to use the 14th Amendment to justify raising the debt ceiling. I'm not sure where you get your information on this, but he's made substantial concessions and wants to negotiate a long-term solution to the problem. It's the Republicans who've dug in their heels and refuse to give an inch.

[abinc]

01:13 AM on 07/08/2011

Not sure what lens you are using to view this situation, but from your comment, you sure don't see things clearly. "Negotiations" work when given and take is an option. This debt matter is dire. It has to be an unconditional capitulation by the Dems and the GOP is in a position to force that. I realize we are in for a major upheaval. Still, I think it is better now than later, when the debt will be even larger. Along the way, there is a good chance that any thoughts people may have held about a second term for Obama will just evaporate. Personally, I'm sorry that you seem to hold BO in a good light. That I just don't get. Hopefully, you will study him more closely and realize how BAD he is for the US.

[ebtbrown1]

06:46 PM on 07/22/2011

Did anyone say that when Bush was in office and we raise the debt ceiling 8 times

[aagoodtime2]

07:58 PM on 07/06/2011

John Boehner, tell America, why are you going to be the first Speaker of the House, to let America default on its obligations.
So as a negotiating strategy you say 'If you don't do things my way, I'm going to force the United States to default--not pay the legacy of bills accumulated by my predecessors in Congress.' It's not a credible negotiating strategy, and it's not going to happen,"

[lblackw105]

09:53 AM on 07/31/2011

Predecessors, my foot! He has been there for 11 years, these are HIS bills.

[aagoodtime2]

07:32 PM on 07/06/2011

This is blackmail, at its extreme. If the President does not do what the Repubs want, they will not pass debt cieling. Why now? What are Repubs willing to put on the table? How come Boerner doesnt want the debt cieling raised now. Did he raise the debt cieling before Obama. How many times? Did the Democrats ever threaten not to raise the debt cieling, in order to get concessions. Everyone in America knows the Republicans are blackmailing the process of government. Everyone sees the Republicans are bullying the process of government. What concessions are Repubs willing to give in to...Weve had Democratic and Republican Presidents, but never in history of the United States has America, hasnt paid its debt. Why now? Politics, politics, politics....that is all....

[lblackw105]

11:39 AM on 07/07/2011

It is exceedingly strange that if the people doing all the waving of arms, jumping, and shouting and hooting, never once refused to raise the debt ceiling when a Republican was in power. Even when The Party had a lock on all branches of government.

[TruelyFedUp]

05:05 PM on 07/06/2011

"The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government. However, its authority is derived from the U.S. Congress and is subject to congressional oversight."

[TruelyFedUp]

05:05 PM on 07/06/2011

Continued;

Well they all blew it so;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[lblackw105]

11:47 AM on 07/07/2011

But, "TruEly", if we rebel against the elected Congress of the United States, as you apparently are encouraging, wouldn't we simply be comitting treason?

[TruelyFedUp]

12:30 PM on 07/07/2011

You gotta read every word. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructiv­e of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government­." Alter is in there as well as abolish. And, no, treason is when a government violates the principles stated there "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructiv­e of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government­, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So, if our government is making us less safe by starting wars of agression in countries that don't want to give us their resources to "protect our interests", if our Congress is making laws that grant private banks the right to charge us interest on money we could be making ourselves at NO interest, if the courts are granting to corporations rights that should belong only to soverign citizens then they are in violation of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then treason it is, and if you choose slavery instead of freedom - I pity you.

[TruelyFedUp]

12:31 PM on 07/07/2011

P.S. I see that your spelling is only slightly worse than mine. :-)

Truly