House Democratic Leaders To Obama: Use The 14th Amendment [UPDATED]

WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders emerged from a Wednesday caucus meeting with a message for President Barack Obama: Invoke the Constitution to resolve the debt standoff.

If Congress can't reach a deal on a long-term debt limit increase by Aug. 2, Obama should "sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment," said Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

"I am convinced that whatever discussions about the legality of that can continue," Clyburn said. "But I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets."

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) acknowledged that Obama has previously expressed doubts about his legal authority to unilaterally raise the debt limit. But circumstances have changed, Larson said, and "we just want to let him know that his Caucus is prepared to stand behind him" if Congress fails to pass a long-term deal.

"We have to have a fail-safe mechanism," Larson said. "We believe that fail-safe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States."

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Essentially, Democrats are arguing that since the "public debt" cannot be questioned, then the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

Democratic senators have been eying this option since late June. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, predicted at that time the constitutional option may get "a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'"

With time running out on Congress to come up with a bipartisan plan by next Tuesday to avert a debt default, Clyburn put the constitutional option back on the table in the Wednesday caucus meeting and got strong support from members. But he said he has yet to bring it back up to Obama.

"I speak with the White House often," Clyburn told reporters. "I have not spoken to them today."

Former President Bill Clinton has said he would invoke that option "without hesitation" and leave it to the courts to figure it out.

UPDATE: 3:35 p.m. -- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney again ruled out the possibility of Obama using the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt dispute.

"Our position hasn't changed," Carney said during his Wednesday briefing. "There are no off-ramps. ... Only Congress has the legal authority."

UPDATE: 5:20 p.m. -- Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and a handful of other Democrats are holding a Thursday press conference to urge Obama to use the 14th Amendment as a back-up option.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) will join with Engel at 1:00 p.m. to call to Obama to "invoke the 14th Amendment in the absence of a bipartisan agreement agreement to raise the debt ceiling and avoid national default," according to a press release. The group also picked a symbolic location to deliver their message: the corner of Constitution Ave and 14th St.

Comments

[Teresa C Martin]

06:33 PM on 08/18/2011

To begin with the debt ceiling has been raised a number of times under a number of presidents, Dem's and Rep's. Doing this is not to increase the debt but to pay the debt we already owe. Obama did the best with what was handed him and then with the deck stacked against him (Rep. wanting him to completely fail)he is holding his own. If we want a truly balanced budget it's time the "fat cats" (rich) pay their fair share......
Why don't the ones that are trying to put shame on the Obama administration just admit the real "truth".... HE"S BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[danceswithdata]

04:40 PM on 07/31/2011

Grow up, US Congress. Try for once in your pitiful, professional lives to vote on behalf of those who elected you, rather than your infuriating fixation on preserving your own hubris.

[peblejim]

12:02 PM on 07/30/2011

Obama would invoke the 14th if it carried him through to the next election, as in "kicking the can down the street".

[adamantthe1st21]

08:45 AM on 07/30/2011

again i was right. america is becoming a third world country like zimbabwe.

[Iconcoclast]

09:32 PM on 07/29/2011

Only a moron--or a Democrat--could read the language of the 14th Amendment and imagine it authorizes the President to issue debt without approval of Congress. And only a moron would think that Obama would attempt to issue suspect debt--debt that may not be backed by the full faith and credit of the USA. No one would buy those notes without significant discounts--discounts the USA is not going to issue.

Just pass the Boehner bill. Reid and Obama ran the clock out without proposing a single concrete bill. Clearly they would be happy to see 8/2 arrive without an agreement to raise the debt limit. Regardless of the damage to our country and citizens, Obama would use it as a political opportunity.

[Geowil]

10:49 PM on 07/30/2011

"Just pass the Boehner bill"

We cannot pass this bill because we would lose our rating. The credit agencies that any plan other then a long term plan that shows serious thought into dealing with the debt, including spending cuts and other sources of revenue, would result in the lowering of our credit rating. Passing the Boehner plan would be tantamount to saying 'I give up'.

[Gary Sawyer]

08:22 PM on 07/29/2011

I can't understand how the republican party can survive in its present form after all the destruction they are about to cause America. Even if the debt crisis is resolved favorably for Americans, only a fool would admit to being a republican now or after the fact. Lower case intended.

[F1reMan829]

06:35 PM on 07/29/2011

I'm sorry, but some of you need to really read what you are writing. It may seem like rational thinking but it is utterly so biased I dare not even reply to half of the things on here because it would be like arguing with a lamp. US as a nation, should stand together and bite this bullet together, stop overspending and cut these luxuries we've become accustomed to feeling, our standard of living is extraordinary compared to the world. I also agree with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts. I know this will piss off people who make a heck of a lot more money than normal folks do but even though the government did "nothing" to take an extra percentage or two of money off of your $1 billion you earned this year, do you think we can all sacrifice for a little bit until we get our debt under control? I would give my life for this country, I've seen the opportunities and I've seen the true American Dream and that anyone can accomplish here. NO, life is not fair, it does not say "guaranteed success" on our birth certificates, it does not say I'm entitled to free everything. Some people are born rich and some are born poor, some are born pretty and some are born....ehhh...well not so much, you get the idea. It's how we live our lives and the choices we make that dictate our lives, nothing else, OPPORTUNITY awaits everyone.

[doctor4kids]

05:07 PM on 07/29/2011

I haven't read all 21,799 comments posted here, so forgive me if I'm saying something that's been said several times before.
What we really need in this country is jobs. Don't you remember Mr. Boehner chanting "Jobs, jobs, jobs"? Putting people back to work would naturally increase tax revenues and would decrease spending on social safety nets like unemployment, food stamps and medicaid. People with jobs would spur greater consumer demand which would create even more jobs.

We used to be a more generous country and we were rewarded for it with robust prosperity. After WWII our debt to GDP ratio was much worse than it is now. And what did we do? We sent a generation of returning veterans (like my Dad) to college via the GI Bill. We built the Interstate highway system. We sent a man to the moon inspiring kids in the '60's to study science and math. We don't seem to do big things anymore. We're cutting back on teachers and financial aid to college students, increasing class sizes and letting our infrastructure decay. It seems that we're not striving for greatness anymore.

[stanleycorp1]

07:03 PM on 07/29/2011

So how can we do it? how do you inspire greatness... probably through example... that's what we are lacking..

[Sandy Vaughan]

04:42 PM on 07/29/2011

1. need a whites for blacks too!
2. after listening to the NO NO party for all the time President Obama has been in office, i wish the republicans would start getting the democrats to call republican out and bend less easily! stop trying to reason with them and start saying no right back to them.

sandy from texas

[stanleycorp1]

07:01 PM on 07/29/2011

we need less racists like you sandy... Do you even know why you're republican?

[Sandy Vaughan]

08:15 PM on 07/29/2011

me, a republican...i don't think so. what else would i call the the no no party? why else would i want a 'whites for blacks' group? i have seen so many of them on rachcel maddow and kieth obermann that i want this whites to see them too and realize what great speakers and thinkers they are! but i am sometimes confused as to why the dems don't stand up to the no nos more. sometimes i fell the dems let the no nos bully them.

sandy from texas

[stanleycorp1]

07:06 PM on 07/29/2011

SO SORRY sandy!!!... I red this too fast and i MISUNDERSTOOD... AHH It first sounded like you were calling the democratic party ... as degrading blacks - by saying "say no to them..." sorry it was confusing

[Paul Botticelli]

04:19 PM on 07/29/2011

I understand the current postion of the WH regarding its decision to not rely on the 14th Amendment as an option of last resort: Specifically, the Executive Branch must know for certain that the legislative Branch has exhausted its options entirely before it turns to utilizing Executive Privilege to save the country from harm. (emphasis on "entirely")

Secondly, the President knows he can exercise his authority as Chief Executive to do what needs to be done in the interests of National Security. And, there is no doubt that the security of our citizenry is tied directly to the economic security of our country. If our credit ratings fall, our dollar gets de-valued, and Nations, like China, start calling in our debt obligations to them, we are at the mercy of external threats to our National Defense in ways that can only be imagined.
This debt crisis is being so badly mis-managed by irresponsibility on the part of obstuctionistic House Representatives, that it calls into question their ability to exercise sound judgment at the very least and may even suggest that they are blind and insensitive to the greater National Defense of the United States.

[stanleycorp1]

07:16 PM on 07/29/2011

you know i don't think that the US will be taken with any military force, The US will simply sign the rights over on a document... They will come in with a solution to fix the 4 trillion dept, by pen and paper....

"we will buy the depts and solve the economical problems... here's 4 trillion to pull out debts for the country, and here's an extra 4 trill for you guys to sign it..."

Our own people will sign it!!! You know it.

[stanleycorp1]

07:18 PM on 07/29/2011

hence - china or the gas lords will now own the US.... and buy our constitution... Can it actually happen..? who knows

[Noel Franz]

03:10 PM on 07/29/2011

5 days yahoo line,cash, fish-hook and down the rabbit hole you go. Yahoo. As for the Rich putting the screws to the floor. paying nothing.
But as for you will that's another matter.
Ancor a way. Hhold on.your going down, down ,down. and the Rich go up,up, up. Don't you just love it. Congress does.

[kburgoyne]

02:04 PM on 07/29/2011

No really sure invoking the 14th is even necessary. When Congress sends conflicting laws to the Executive, the Executive has the right to interpret those laws in whatever means is necessary to resolve the conflict. For example, Congress could send a law to the Executive ordering the Executive to hire 50 government employees but that none of them can be female. That law would conflict with preexisting anti-discrimination laws, and the Executive could carry out the new law by hiring the 50 new employees but ignoring the "no females" clause. Likewise, the Executive does not need to invoke the 14th. The Executive can simply declare that Congress has both ordered the Executive Branch to spend money, and has ordered the Executive Branch to not spend money. The Executive can simply state that "Until Congress provides clarifications that eliminate the obvious conflict, I will interpret the conflicting laws in whatever fashion I deem necessary to circumvent the conflict." This acknowledges that the Executive is not attempting to circumvent the Constituation and is simply interpreting conflicting Congressional laws to the best of the Executive's ability until such time as the Congress provides clarification.

[VetKor51]

12:03 PM on 07/29/2011

The Bush tax cuts for the rich were "temporary."
It's time to get rid of these cuts because (1) they didn't create
jobs and (2) we can't afford them.

[peblejim]

12:04 PM on 07/30/2011

Jobs will never return, companies have permanently downsized or moved out of the country, due to Obama.
Yes, the rich have made alot of money, No, you can't have it just because you vote in politicians who promise you they will take it and give it to you.

[Geowil]

11:04 PM on 07/30/2011

It is not a matter of taking back what they have earned. It is about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. They floated those on the idea that we would have continuing economic growth through out the last decade. We had a budget surplus and a strong economy.

When 9/11 happened their first order of duty should have been to remove the cuts. We could have then afforded the wars for at least some amount of time. You do not cut taxes when you are at war, it makes no economical sense. You have to pay more out to your soldiers, pay for materials being used to create weapons, tanks, and other tools used in those wars. This means you have to have increased revenue.

1

[Geowil]

11:05 PM on 07/30/2011

People cling to no new taxes like a blanket. It is time to grow up and dump the blanky, we cannot afford the BTC anymore, just like we cannot afford to keep spending so much in entitlements where there is blatant fraud going on.

We need to look through every Government agency and see where they are spending their money. If it is not on something that is needed at the moment or something that has no future then the funding for those departments should be slashed temporarily.

We should go through and slash funding temporarily to all entitlements except Health and Human Services, including educational grants, Medicare, and Social Security. We should cut some spending in those excluded groups but not so much that it effects them broadly.

We need to cut spending for the DOD and close some of our international bases that we no longer need. We also need to reign in spending in the form of removing tax breaks from profiting companies and subsidies until we can afford to review them for reinstatement.

Letting the BTC go would generate an increase or at least two or three trillion in revenue to the Government. Combine that with any of the recent debt plans and that is up to eight trillion cut over ten years.

We need to spend in some areas though, like infrastructure and transit, so that we can get some jobs created.

2

[johnnyc55]

11:08 AM on 07/29/2011

I believe that the real question should be; How did we allow this to slide by wiyhout acting on it until the very last second? Regardless of where the liberals want to steer the blame. It rests with the current president and his band of commrades. He has had over three years to push congress toward balanced budgets and spending less. I believe it should have been easier to do when there majority control by his own party. Instead he choose to go on a record spending spree, giving money to any mis managed company who asked for it.
Make no mistake, our current situation is the responsibility of our current administration.
The Democrats will try to spin this off on every republican that ever lived. The fact is that this administration has acted irresposible with the tasks at hand. It is now thier problem, no one likes it.
Oh yeah, by the way, how is your life? Has it gotten any better over the last 3 years?Are you better off now that you were befor all the change? Who do you blame that on?

[snaggle2th]

12:30 PM on 07/29/2011

Actually, I'm no better than I was under Clinton, nor is the rest of the country.

In fact, things have stopped getting worse...

The Republicans are channelling Lenin: making things worse so they might try and benefit.

Reprehensible...

[Eugene6]

10:49 AM on 07/29/2011

This isn't a movie we are watching where you just let the GOP's unwillingness to compromise with anything close to what the majority of voters are telling them, go ahead and crash the nation. The 14th Amendment is like one of those safety off-ramps for trucks on steep grades so, when the brakes fail, or in this case when insanity is unchecked, there is indeed a safety off-ramp. If no agreement by Tuesday, use the ramp, Mr. President.