John Cornyn: Invoking The 14th Amendment On The Debt Limit Is 'Crazy Talk'

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) is rejecting one solution to the debt limit impasse being floated by Democrats that argues the president has the authority to ignore the ceiling because it is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

"That's crazy talk," said Cornyn on "Fox News Sunday."

The 14th Amendment reads, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

If the White House were to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional, it could continue to meet its financial obligations and leave many Republicans and Tea Party members in the tough spot of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution.

"It's not acceptable for Congress and the president not to do their job and to say somehow the president has the authority to then basically do this by himself," Cornyn continued. "We ought to sit down and work together, and it shouldn't take the form of press conferences like the president gave last week, where he was essentially the schoolmarm, scolding Congress for not getting its job done when, in fact, he is the one who has not stepped up and given us a proposal.

"We'd like to see what his proposal is," Cornyn concluded. "Let's do it in the light of day, not in secret behind-closed-door negotiation -- only to spring it on the people at the last moment, saying it's this, take it or leave it, or else there is financial calamity."

Last week during a briefing with reporters, President Obama dodged a question about the 14th Amendment and the debt ceiling.

"I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here," he said.

But in May at a Politico Playbook breakfast, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner specifically pointed to the amendment, even whipping out his pocket-sized Constitution to make his point.

More recently, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said invoking the 14th amendment in the debt debate is an option "certainly worth exploring."

Shumer warned, however, that the amendment would probably not come into play during the current debate.

"It needs a little more exploration and study," he said. "It's probably not ripe to pursue at this time, because it hasn't had that study and you wouldn't want to just go ahead and issue the debt and have one of the courts reverse it."

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, also told The Huffington Post the issue had been raised "in some private debate between senators."

Watch Sen. Cornyn's comments, as well as other highlights from this week's Sunday shows:

Comments

[MikeLoran]

01:19 AM on 07/10/2011

We'd like to see what his proposal is," Cornyn concluded

Ok, you saw, Sat, July 10th, and you refused it without offering anything better.

There's a reson you are called: THE PARTY OF NO !!

[Mover]

01:59 PM on 07/14/2011

There was no proposal on Saturday. All the President has been doing is saying "no" to any GOP plan. He has offered nothing himself. Nothing. That is how Obama operates. he lets others lead, then attacks their ideas.

His latest trick was storming out of the talks.

Everyone ought to be used to his juvenile behavior by now. You know, 'not my fault' not my fault'. waaaa, waaaa, waaaa

[ejhickey]

04:08 PM on 07/09/2011

President is not going to use the 14th Amendment. this issue is now d ead

[cobra7]

04:48 PM on 07/07/2011

My DAD was a vet as were most of my male relatives. My sense of country is very strong and that is why I don't and will not tolerate no BS coming from these Republicans! From my point of view which may be extreme but I do believe that the Republicans are Domestic Terrorists. They are willing to hold this country hostage for any reason as they did by blackmailing our president to extend the Bush Tax Cuts!! Furthermore, by not agreeing to eliminate the Loopholes for the Rich which would solve most of our problems on the revenue side and make them pay their fair share which IMO would bring about another surplus. Cornyn and the Republicans will be remembered as the party that brought this country down to its knees...nuff said

[Mover]

07:11 PM on 07/10/2011

Ranting from a position of ignorance doesn't help whatever your cause is. Reasonable people will ignore you.

You seem to be very envious of those who became sucessful. That, too, is a reason to be ignored.

Class warfare helps no one. Robbing the successful does not help the poor, it just lowers the chance to prosper for everyone, well except the political class.

[cobra7]

12:22 AM on 07/11/2011

I did not rant from a position of ignorance. Reasonable people do pay attention to me but ignorant righties do not! Righties believe that tax cuts promote JOBS and there is no ;proof....no ;proof that they do. Your rationale that I am ;promoting robbing from the rich does not help the poor but ending the bush tax cuts will help. The Rich and Corporations are the one that have started Class Warfare and thats a fact......nuff said

[cobra7]

04:06 PM on 07/07/2011

This is not a Liberal nor Conservative issue. I just don't understand why Republicans lockstep when it comes to this issue. To support their position must mean that all Republicans are Rich! If you are not Rich, then why do you support their agenda? They prostitute themselves for the good of their corporate masters. They put party first instead of country first! Not supporting the end to the tax breaks that continue to bankrupt this country at the expense of the middle class is part of that agenda so, again, why do you align yourselves with their causes?

If you want to get excited about something why don't you ask them how come they have not replaced the money they took from the Social Security Trust Fund starting with Reagan, Bush I and Bush II! They continue to talk about how much money it is costing this country but never talk about how they took the money and ran leaving only IOUs in their wake! Hypocrisy comes in many forms and the GOP much rather forget that they are responsible for decimating the SS Trust Fund.This is the main reason why SS should not be on the table along side with Medicare and Medicaid...nuff said

[Mover]

07:15 PM on 07/10/2011

"I just don't understand why Republican­s lockstep when it comes to this issue. "

Because they are correct on this one.

Did you support the democrats' lock stepping on HCR and stimulus?
Did you support the unions when they lock-step and go on strike?

Don't say it's different, because it's not.

[cobra7]

12:14 AM on 07/11/2011

You did not address the core point of my post. HCR and the Stimulus was the correct thing to do. Attacks against the unions is just plain wrong because the Republicans want to turn back the clock to decimate the middle class. If corporations do not want to pay a fair wage then unions are needed period which means they can go on strike..nuff said

[Daly]

12:38 AM on 07/31/2011

untrue... there were several Democrats not in line for HCR they believed the GOP lies

unions go on strike ... you drive a truck; guess it was non-union; enjoy your union fought for weekend.

Watch sports?  STOP they are union

[Mover]

01:20 PM on 07/15/2011

"This is not a Liberal nor Conservati­ve issue. "

It should not be, but the president is persisting in making political speeches, claiming he will make cuts, but when asked "what will you cut", he can't think of anything. He has sent his water-boys out, Dick Durban, Harry Reid, Chris Mathews and Anderson Copper to name a few, to shout that if an agreement cannot be made the Republicans will be at fault

Obama refuses to cut anything. He refuses to compromise at all.

He wants to continue spending more and more money with no concern over devaluing the dollar, bankrupting the country and putting millions more out of work.

That would become a crisis and what does Obama need to to make sweeping changes? A crisis.

I don't know what anyone here really believes, but I do know that I do not need any more problems caused by a president, who doesn't know anything, trying to enrich himself and his friends.

Fact: Obama has increased the national debt by close to 50%.

And no Obama supporter can identify what he spent $4 trillion, over and above the regular budget ($2.6T annually), on.

[cobra7]

02:15 AM on 07/18/2011

Again Obama has gone into the meetings stating that everything is on the table. This means that anything and everything is subject to be cut. Not a rocket scientist issue. I have been hearing from pundits that he needs to write it down..this is ludicrous..Every participant in the room knows whats at stake but some are in denial because they want to play dumb and go before the cameras and say that the president does not know what he wants to cut. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and watching Faux Newz and listening to OxyRush and you might gain an understanding in what is actually going on...nuff said

[Daly]

12:42 AM on 07/31/2011

not liking the bully pulpit?

The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world.... Ronald Reagan

[SigonellaPC3]

08:58 AM on 07/06/2011

Starving, when food commodities send our markets in upheaval, will know no political party.

[bsherman]

08:09 AM on 07/06/2011

He wants it to be "crazy talk." Because he knows it defuses the bomb republicans have strapped to their hostage (the economy). If it comes down to it, Obama will use this - and hey it's in the constitution. Tea partiers should be all for it.

[Eric Davis1]

02:05 PM on 07/09/2011

Any debt issued in violation of the debt ceiling would not be authorized by law, so the government would never have to pay it back. The president doesn't have the power to borrow money. Only Congress has the power to borrow money. The whole checks and balances thing is apparently not understood by the left.

[Mover]

08:06 PM on 07/10/2011

You may have a point. But it is Barack and his cronies who are holding the country hostage. This is the most criminal and inept administration since FDR. Their criminal acts are too many to list here, but a few stand out.

Violating contract law, ordering the firing of GM's CE, the closing of 3 divisions firing 100,000 + workers, disregarding investors and giving 22% of the company to buy union support.
Violating his oath of office by picking the winners (Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bank of America)) and losers (hundreds of small banks around the country and Americans).
Failure to prosecute Black Panthers for felony voter obstruction.
Funding ACORN and planned Parenthood.
Putting soldiers in harms way for political purposes.
Forcing American to fund terrorists.

Like I said, too much to list here.

[Adamets]

07:56 AM on 07/14/2011

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it illegal.

Nixon funded Planned Parenthood in 1970 it has been funded ever since. Funding for ACORN started at least in 1994. ACORN was found to have no misconduct and the videos were doctored. Funding for both groups was—and for PP still is—legal.
Bush broke the law by torturing people and lying to congress. Obama is stuck in Bush’s wars. Both were in their right as Commander in Chief to put solders in harms way for any reason. As former military you should know the President owns you when you enlist. As for Obama going into Libya w/o congress’ approval this is and was within his power as CIC and is also within in the War Powers Act. Presidents Kennedy (prior to WPA), Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes and numerous other Presidents have done this as well.
Funding terrorist: Who specifically, because we’ve been funding terrorist since we became a nation. You better say whom and even then Obama is no worse then Reagan, Kennedy, Bush, Nixon or almost any other president we’ve had.
Banks became too big to fail under previous administrations. Bush gave the first bailouts. Unfortunately Obama and Bush were doing their job of protecting Americans at that time. The real failures came when we let the banks get that big in the first place.

[Adamets]

08:04 AM on 07/14/2011

P.S. You might have something fishy (not illegal, especially considering a President can pardon) in the Black Panthers case but you have a case where only one incident happened in only one location and only one person had a weapon (Billy-club). The other person was unarmed and allowed to stay by police because he was a registered ballet watcher. So you cant really go after anyone other than that one person. Secondly you don’t know what happened in the court room or in pretrial plea bargains and you certainly don’t know if Obama was directly involved or not.

Also FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression and we only came out after the government enacted massive spending programs to fund the war. FDR’s failure before that was doing smaller spending packages that would help but were never big enough to pull us out all the way. The war changed that and the huge amount government spending and borrowing for the war got the economy started again. Furthermore as the only president elected 4 times obviously the people of the country that actually had to live with FDR had a much different opinion of him than you do. That says something about the man.

You could go on but if your stuff is as shoddy as the list you just gave, you should forget about it.

[Fina Biscotti]

05:18 AM on 07/06/2011

OBAMA has been talking CRAZY for awhile.

[denroth1]

04:02 AM on 07/06/2011

This guy should know about crazy talk!!!

[p47nandmosquito]

07:53 PM on 07/05/2011

For starters, talking about defaulting, causing one of the greatest financial collapses in US history, probably in world history, that's, "crazy talk." If there are people thinking of that as a serious or even desirable option, talking about treating the debt ceiling as unconstitutional and invalid to prevent that is nothing, nothing at all. Further, it is a quite reasonable constitutional argument. Any sensible person has every right to scold Congress, particularly the Republicans, for failing to do their constitutional duty or listen to the will of the people, who called for major progressive reform and strong recovery programs. The Obama administration has been strongly involved in negotiations, together with congressional leaders from both parties. The negotiations have been behind closed doors so that those involved can discuss anything they need to without a massive backlash, and come to a whole agreement before being verbally assaulted for any individual item on it.

[Mover]

02:21 PM on 07/06/2011

It won't collapse. This is plain old politicking by a bunch of self-serving self-proclaimed knowitalls who cannot stand the thought of cutting back on spending. When they talk about "progress" they are are talking about growing the budget, by one third starting in 2009, and they do not care who it hurts, especially working Americans who will just do as they are told and repeat the propagandists' talking points.

The debt ceiling is simply a point where the law says they cannot add more debt to what they owe. That means they will have to pay out what they owe this year, right now, instead of printing and borrowing more money. As each payment rolls in they can pay it with what they have coming in from income taxes, FICA & SS taxes, fees for services ('bet you didn't recall that you have to pay for some government service) and payola from the unions and China.

You're playing chicken little. Please get with the program and dump these progressive talking points that help no one except dishonest politicians and their wealthy supporters.

[p47nandmosquito]

04:52 PM on 07/06/2011

"These progressive talking points," huh? The ones that every conservative economist keeps repeating? Oh, and you realize that spending went up by half going into 2008, that's under Bush, right? Everyone with a shred of sense recognizes that spending has to go up in a recession. And as to your claim that the government can make debt payments with money coming in, I don't buy that at all. Most people pay their taxes at the same time, which means the government gets a bunch of money at once, and almost nothing the rest of the year, so making the payments on continuously incoming revenue is grossly at odds with reality. Further, the government does not have authority to print money to cover payments, only to borrow it from others. No, I did not forget that people have to pay a small portion of the costs for many things, but the outlays almost always exceed the income in such cases. Besides which, if the government stops paying people the money it promised to pay them, no matter who it is, it will scare investors, period. Have to split my comment here.

[p47nandmosquito]

04:53 PM on 07/06/2011

Not paying the investors on the debt is probably worse, but either way confidence in the US will be badly shaken. And if confidence in the US, the one stable rock through anything, is suddenly gone, it doesn't take an economist to tell you what that will do to stock markets, which almost everyone has large portions of their savings in. Basically, it will start the exact same process that started the Great Depression: sudden massive losses in the stock market caused a massive loss of confidence in everything which caused a massive recession. That recession was then not appropriately arrested by the government (under a Republican) and therefore turned into a depression. That's basic facts and common sense, proving that default would clearly cause a massive collapse in the world economy. No, I'm not, "playing chicken little."

[towercam]

07:17 PM on 07/05/2011

Cornyn has no room to speak. He ignores the pleading of his constituents daily.

He's against women's rights.
He's against the legalization of a harmless plant.
He's against anything that might actually help this nation.
He's a sad sick little servant of the corporations.
Whatever they want him to do or say is what he'll do.
He only cares about the millions shoveled his way by the corporations.
He believes in the fairy tales of the bible.
He doesn't believe in Equality for all adult citizens.
He's nothing more than a 'good ol' boy', playing the same old game of getting in power and selling his votes to the highest bidder. He's got no business being in office.

[viking1969]

10:38 PM on 07/05/2011

The very definition of the GOP: Sociopathic.

[denroth1]

04:02 AM on 07/06/2011

Fanned!

[Danilo Gurovich]

06:32 PM on 07/05/2011

Gotta raise taxes on the wealthy. Compromise isn't giving one side most of what it wants or will accept while ignoring your entire needs.

Time to do what's right, not what 12% of the American Public will agree to. See 'yall in November '12 -- If there's a country left...

[denroth1]

04:05 AM on 07/06/2011

Great big Fanned and Favin'!

[Mover]

02:38 PM on 07/06/2011

Classifying people for special treatment or punishment is wholly un-American.

If you taxed the "rich" at the same rate you are taxiing the middle class, they would still be paying hundreds and thousands of times the tax that middle class earners pay.

Earn $50,000 pay $8000, earn $5,000,000 pay $800,000.00, earn $5,000,000,000.00 pay $800,000,000.00.

Under a Fair and Flat tax, the wealthy would still pay much more than your average American. But the system would be fair, treating everyone equally, instead of picking the winners and losers (an Obama favorite) and making working Americans jump through crazy hoops to get a tax break.

[codycap]

04:32 PM on 07/06/2011

Imagine a country with 100 people. One person makes $1,000,000 per year; the other 99 make $1 per year.

Being an exceeding Conservative (imaginary) country, there is a flat tax system of, say, 10%.

The republican talking point for this country would be, “The top 1% of the wage earners pay 99.99% of the taxes!”

[Sgt Beefeater]

06:19 PM on 07/05/2011

Huffpo please let my (previous) comment go!

[codycap]

05:30 PM on 07/05/2011

As Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute puts it, the G.O.P. has, in effect, come around with baseball bats and declared, “Nice economy you have here. A real shame if something happened to it.”

[Mover]

02:40 PM on 07/06/2011

Roosevelt Institute must be full of loons. Either that or they are selling the progressive agenda.

Either way it's nonsense. But go ahead, drink up.

[codycap]

04:30 PM on 07/06/2011

For those who think the poor want to take from the rich.

http://www.lcurve.org/

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.) --

The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high. --

At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high. --

The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line. --

From there it keeps going up...it goes up 30 miles on this scale!

Does it make sense from looking at this graph that we have to cut social services and unemployment to balance our deficit?

We wouldn’t even have to increase taxes on the rich to put the country in the green. Just do to them what they want to do to us.

"Take the Rich Off Welfare", Zepezauer and Naiman

"If you cut 26 percent of the welfare now given to the rich you have instantly balanced the budget."

"If you cut out wealthfare, you could pay off the national debt in 11 years."

[codycap]

07:35 PM on 07/06/2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harlan-green/the-economics-of-povertyt_b_889746.html

There is enough wealth for all. The historical personal income rate of increase for all American households averages 5.6 percent per year, before inflation, so no income segment has to see a reduction in income. In fact, modern economic theory says as much. When incomes are more fairly distributed -- whether via progressive taxation or other wealth equalizing policies (such as greater access for all to an adequate social safety net), the economy grows faster for everyone.

Progressive; A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions.

They can be either conservative or liberal.

[FACTISFACT]

05:24 PM on 07/05/2011

Mr.John Cornyn: you may be correct or incorrect to say, invoking the 14th Amendment on the Debt Limit Is 'Crazy Talk' but we wanted to know from you as a specialist in this crazy talk to show us what the correct talk is. You avoided for the last 14 days t tell us.

Is this your mode of operation that you will criticize others and know nothing of the solution to the problem? Are you trying to fool us the public, thinking we are a herd of sheep.

Now, be sure we are no more the same old public to be kicked around by the rich and you all Republican Politicians. Your Republican G W Bush did the crime and crippled the country Financially, Economically, Commercially together with all other sectors, we public are suffering, next time we want to hear what is the solution to eliminate your 'Crazy Talk'.

[denroth1]

04:08 AM on 07/06/2011

Fanned!
Thank you for your service to our nation...

[FACTISFACT]

07:42 AM on 07/06/2011

Hi! My Friend denroth 1, thank you so much for appreciating my humble comment and showering on me such nice and kind words. I am humbled down to earth by your kind gesture of deciding to extend your hand of friendship to me. I on my own behalf and on behalf of all my friends welcome you to our decent friend's circle. I am sure you will like the friends association and enjoy your entire stay with us.

Please make yourself comfortable. We will talk later on. Take Care. FACTISFACT

[Mover]

02:52 PM on 07/06/2011

Maybe I can help you out.

It is crazy talk because the 14th Amendment talks about debt that is "authorized by law". The debt ceiling is not an abstract number pulled out of a hat. It is the amount of debt the US government is allowed to accumulate as authorized by the law that set it.

The only way to violate the law would be for the president and congress to authorize borrowing past that limit. If they violate the limit, then they are subject to the impeachment for failing to honor their oath of office (support and defend the laws of the United States).

Progressives leave out the 'authorized by law' part when they propagandizing the subject for consumption by the masses (that would b you, my friend).

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4, in part: "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."

[FACTISFACT]

09:41 PM on 07/06/2011

Mover I have gone through your post in reply to my comment. My Friend what I wanted to know from him is he solution to the problem as he called the rest to be talking lazy. But i found him a block head has nothing to say about the solution. Now already senator Reid and two others found the solution in the rich has to pay tax.

However, thanks for the response. Take Care.

[MikeinChicago]

10:12 PM on 07/06/2011

Aren't all the debts contained in the deficit "authorized by law"? If not, how did they get there?

[OldBro70]

05:14 PM on 07/05/2011

Um Senator Cornyn R-TX. no matter what President Obama proposes will be "crazy talk" to your Republican caucuses, in the House and in the Senate,.