iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Democrats Pressure Obama To Use 14th Amendment To Raise Debt Ceiling (VIDEO)


First Posted: 07/28/11 06:33 PM ET Updated: 09/27/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- With time running out and still no bipartisan debt deal in sight, a growing number of House Democrats are pressuring President Barack Obama to use a constitutional option they say would allow him to raise the debt ceiling himself.

"We believe that the president should invoke the 14th Amendment," Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday.

During a press conference, Engel said he "doesn't take lightly" the ceding of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. But given the partisan logjam in Congress and the extraordinary potential consequences of default, he said Obama should lean on the Constitution as a last resort.

"The debt ceiling must be lifted," said Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands), also at the press conference. "And if that is the only way to get it done, then Mr. President, do it. And we and many more Members will stand with you."

Other Democrats, including Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), John Garamendi (Calif.) and Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), are also calling on Obama to step in to resolve the debt crisis if Congress can't reach a deal by August 2, when the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills and begin to default.

"Our president, we believe, has the [ultimate] power to solve this," Garamendi said. "We hope he doesn't have to use it."

The provision at the heart of the constitutional debate, 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.

The White House insists the constitutional approach is off the table, citing legal concerns with the president's authority to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.

"There are no off-ramps. There’s no way around this. There’s no escape," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday. "Only Congress has the legal authority to extend that borrowing authority. That’s our position."

But some on Capitol Hill beg to differ — and Democratic momentum for the constitutional approach has only increased as the clock runs out. House Democratic leaders on Wednesday unexpectedly threw their support behind the option after a caucus meeting.

"I am convinced that whatever discussions about the legality of that can continue," Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said. "But I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets."

The idea for using the Constitution to resolve the standoff is nothing new: Over the course of the last several months, several commentators have urged the administration to explore the 14th Amendment option. In late June, HuffPost reported that Senate Democrats were actively discussing it as an option and giving it increasing consideration as the difficulty of reaching a compromise became more evident. Two days later, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner read the 14th Amendment out loud to a group of journalists, seemingly implying it was a viable option.

NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Obama about the constitutionality of the debt ceiling at a briefing the day after HuffPost’s initial report. The president dodged the question at the time, but has since said that White House lawyers “are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

Nevertheless, the argument remains. On Thursday, liberal writers Bob Kuttner and Michael Tomasky both argued in separate columns that Obama should invoke the amendment.

Engel speculated that Obama's resistance to the option may fade if it becomes apparent that Congress can't reach a deal by August 2.

"We still have five days," the New York Democrat said. "If we see the days are going by and we're faced with August 2 and we have no other alternative but default, I think the president then will have a change of mind."

"Invoking the 14th Amendment may be the only way out of this crisis," he added.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- With time running out and still no bipartisan debt deal in sight, a growing number of House Democrats are pressuring President Barack Obama to use a constitutional option they say would ...
WASHINGTON -- With time running out and still no bipartisan debt deal in sight, a growing number of House Democrats are pressuring President Barack Obama to use a constitutional option they say would ...
WASHINGTON -- With time running out and still no bipartisan debt deal in sight, a growing number of House Democrats are pressuring President Barack Obama to use a constitutional option they say would ...
WASHINGTON -- With time running out and still no bipartisan debt deal in sight, a growing number of House Democrats are pressuring President Barack Obama to use a constitutional option they say would ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,245
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (45 total)
10:50 PM on 08/01/2011
The 14th amendment actually says: "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." I think it is that "authorized by law" part that screws up things. Congress makes laws not the President and the debt limit is a law. Maybe you guys should have listened when this was read on the floor at the beginning of the session.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
borderlinedevill
10:10 AM on 07/31/2011
Obama should also be forced to account for the hundreds of billions he has expropriated by denying Social Security recipients cost-of-living adjustments in 2010 and 2011 to offset the massive inflation his failed economic policies have caused. His administration has already said that most seniors will also receive no such cost of living increases in 2012.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
borderlinedevill
10:08 AM on 07/31/2011
one can read about playing the blame game ,tea party republicans not bush as much. but the fact is its because of obama and his rediculous obama care which is raising the debt to no ends and folks cant grasp that in the end someone has to pay the bills.may i add this.
THE AMERICAN WELFARE SYSTEM IS A COMPLETE UTTTER FAILURE
all it's done is to produce a population of totally dependent irresponsible people who have no idea how to be self sufficent and who teach their children to live the same way
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GlennWatson
Two million fans
07:35 PM on 07/29/2011
Why is HP forcing us to listen to this video. I cannot turn it off.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
10:41 AM on 07/31/2011
Mute your computer.
Semper fi
02:50 PM on 07/29/2011
If the President can say the 14th amendment allows him to raise the debt ceiling, why can't he also outlaw religion? The 1st amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --No where in there does it say the President can't prohibit the free exercise thereof? If we are going to parse words and not meaning, the President can do anything he wants that is not specifically stated he can't.

At some point in the future, there will be a Republican president. Do you want to give all this power to a Democrat and then try to take it back? Like taxes, once you give that power it is hard to take it back.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheWM
aka The Wrong Monkey
04:47 PM on 07/29/2011
"At some point in the future, there will be a Republican president."

I'm not entirely sure about that.

Especially not if more Democrats, right now, act like they got a pair and stand up against insanity, stupidity and greed.
07:31 PM on 07/29/2011
Dems are part of the insanity, stupidity and greed. . . hence the problems we are now in. Things are finally coming to a head, because there are consequences to bad governance. We've been going downhill for decades and the dems have been in complete control of the house, senate and presidency 11 times in the past 40-50 years, compared to the 2 times for republicans. So this is a systemic problem, which belongs more to the dems than the repubs (arguably), long term. One way or the other, we are now having to pay for the promises this and past congresses have created. At some point, we have to make a choice about what we are going to pay or not pay with the ever decreasing cash from the pockets of the upper 50% of Americans who contribute taxes. Social security, medicare, medicaid, VA, etc. will be on the chopping block at some time, like it or not. Nothing else comes close to the amount of money those programs cost. They will be diminished, one way or the other. It's up to us and the people we elect to make wise decisions about how those things will be handled. So we better be electing people who know what the heck they are doing, which very few in this administration seem to know.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GlennWatson
Two million fans
07:36 PM on 07/29/2011
I'm not entirely sure about that.>>>

Wanna bet?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SoquiliAsgaya
10:05 AM on 07/31/2011
Every president takes an oath to protect the US and it's citizens. To use the 14th Amendment should be perfectly legal against the neo con toilet paper partiers in protection of the 50 million tax payers that are on SSI.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
10:44 AM on 07/31/2011
What would he invoke? There is no language, and no authority, to give him an invocation?!! Further, section 5 reserves the authority to the Congress. So, what will he invoke?
Semper fi
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chamique Parker
02:43 PM on 07/29/2011
Invoking the 14th amendment would guarantee a debt downgrade. It would prove to the rating agencies that politicians aren't serious about getting deficits under control.
07:35 PM on 07/29/2011
And it doesn't apply here. While nobody I'm sure would question the "validity" of the debt as it currently stands, there's no language there that would allow a president to raise the debt ceiling. Even Obama's own lawyers say so. In addition, the original amendment related specifically to the union debt at the time. This is a great example of why amendments to the constitution should be carefully considered for future consequences. Also, why an amendment for a balanced budget would be a bad idea. It would mean that our congress would then be required to tax or spend to maintain a balanced budget. It would be worse than it is now. . . taxes would surely increase under such an amendment.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
KriTiKiT
Says"play nice"
02:28 PM on 07/29/2011
It's Seem alot of posters here don't know how our legislature works...
 To all you tea parties (because sane republicans know this too) :  the Constitution DICTATES INSTRUCTIONS:
Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills. The reason for this is that at the time the Constitution was written, it was felt that Senators would be more wealthy than Representatives and might be willing to spend more government money than the Representatives would. Also, the House with its greater numbers was seen as being the better guage of the wishes of the people for spending measures.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_must_all_revenue_bills_originate_in_the_house_of_representatives#ixzz1TWICgCZI

So in conclusion; Speaker John needs to BE THE SPEAKER and Not have to have the Executive branch use the 14 amendment make sure we pay debts in full faith and credit.  Up or down vote on the debt ceiling..... NOW!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Reno Fickler
Head Lifeguard/Dead Sea Marina
01:28 PM on 07/29/2011
The Supreme Court has never defined the rather ambiguous wording of the 14th Amend. With the POTUS relationship with the Court right now, maybe he'd better seek other avenues of paying the debt. Remember, even a trillion dollar increase wouldn't cover the deficit spending that will occur before the 2012 election. A trillion pays 250 days @$4 billion a day of over-spending. It does nothing to balance the budget. But then the govt doesn't pay much attention to a 'budget'.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AllanAZ
An Arizonian fair ultra liberal voice and view.
09:08 AM on 07/29/2011
We are at war, the Tea Party is acting as subversives threatening the core of our society.
The regular citizen will be injured by their ignorant childish actions.

Invoke Presidential Powers and end this "WIN at and cost" attitude.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GlennWatson
Two million fans
12:37 PM on 07/29/2011
The president is threatening to overturn a democratically elected government and the Constitution and you think the Tea Party is the problem. Wake up.
07:36 PM on 07/29/2011
Thank you for your sanity.
07:43 PM on 07/29/2011
The tea party candidates are more the voice of the people than anyone else previously elected to congress. How are they "subversive" because they want the government to stop spending our money like there was no tomorrow? They are not threatening the core of our society. . . this administration and the past several. . . have and are.

The regular citizen has already been injured by this administration's ignorant and childish actions, along with the members of congress. We have a much worse economy than under Bush, regardless of the debt it inherited. Obama and the dems have taken a bad situation and made it much, much worse.

I think executive powers should be taken away from presidents. We are not a dictatorship. As a matter of fact, your own comment reflects a "win at any cost" attitude. Why is it more right for the president to "win at any cost" when his decisions have put us in this situation?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GlennWatson
Two million fans
08:25 AM on 07/29/2011
If Anyone had suggested Bush should use the Constitution to take power from the Congress Dems would have rioted in the streets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheWM
aka The Wrong Monkey
09:41 AM on 07/29/2011
Okay, so you're saying, one, that Bush never overstepped his authority, and two, that the baggers are much more reasonable than Democrats, because they're not rioting in the streets at the mere suggestion that Obama step in tho avert a major worldwide catastrophe which would happen because the baggers are refusing to let routine legislation pass which would allow the government to pay bills it has already incurred, legislation which has nothing to do with any future spending bills and which passed numerous times, routinely, under the Gipper and W.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GlennWatson
Two million fans
12:35 PM on 07/29/2011
Okay, so you're saying, one, that Bush never oversteppe¬d his authority

Nope never said that.

Baggers are much more reasonable than Democrats

Never said that either.

What I said was if Bush or he people had suggested taking away the power of the Congress to set the budget Dems would have rioted in the streets. Am I wrong?
07:44 PM on 07/29/2011
At some point, the reckless spending habits of our congress have to stop because we simply don't have anymore money. . . period. At some point, brave members of congress HAVE to stand up and say enough. This is that point.
photo
1oldhippie
yes, WE can again!
08:03 AM on 07/29/2011
At this late date, perhaps a "clean bill" is the answer...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheWM
aka The Wrong Monkey
09:43 AM on 07/29/2011
Yeah, a clean bill would be great. A clean bill just like the ones which passed routinely numerous times under W and the Gipper. Has one been introduced in either house of Congress?

Obama is speaking at 10:20 AM. I hope he has something to say this time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
10:46 AM on 07/31/2011
Those were not clean bills. They were omnibus spending bills. Nothing clean there!
Semper fi
04:05 AM on 07/29/2011
Hey Washington !!!!!! getting a little "Up Tight"??? not sleeping well lately ?? Worried ???

Gee.....What a shame !!

most of us haven't slept well for a couple of years now........HOW DOES IT FEEL ????
04:16 AM on 07/29/2011
You allways sleep well on a waterbed filled with tears from american people and a blanket made of stocks and bonds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BillForObama
Hail to the Chief! HAIL, he is the Chief!!!
07:48 AM on 07/29/2011
Fanned and faved.
photo
dshack
Democrats:Cleaning (R) mess since 1930... 2Obama12
03:46 AM on 07/29/2011
The only reason is because it isnt their Presidency on the line. If he goes down o well. They abandoned him hen he needed them to get a budget done in 2010, he told them to raise the debt ceiling and end the bush tax cuts for the rich. They said no we want to wait until after the midterms we think raising taxes will make us lose. They lost and then left him with all the crap we are dealing with this whole year. W tax cuts, Budget deal, Raising the debt ceiling. Dems will tell him to do something and when all goes wrong they ill abandon him like they have in the past.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
UnknownSolider
07:44 AM on 07/29/2011
Let me clear up one or two things, for the most part I agree with you

1.) Pelosi and the House Dems passed the Tax bill that Obama asked for: Make middle income tax cuts permanent, and reset the top bracket to Clinton levels.

That bill got filibustered with the support of several Democrats

2.) Reid came up with a compromise (cave in) where they would separate the Bush tax cuts and extend the top bracket for 2 years and make the middle income cuts permanent........ the Republicans said NO

Obama said get something to my desk that I can sign that will extend unemployment benefits

Everyone agreed to extend the Bush cuts for 2 years, extend unemployment for 1 year, and they can fight this issue during the 2012 election cycle.......

I can list issue after issue where Pelosi and Obama were on the same page, and the Senate Dems threw them under the bus
photo
dshack
Democrats:Cleaning (R) mess since 1930... 2Obama12
10:02 AM on 07/29/2011
I agree that, that happend, but what im talking about is the budget that he told them to get done in march of 2010. Pelosi wanted to get it done the rest of the dems didnt.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe Neri
02:53 AM on 07/29/2011
A better option in the event of a default is to tell Treasury not to pay any bills that would benefit any Red State or district.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheWM
aka The Wrong Monkey
09:48 AM on 07/29/2011
It's a nice fantasy, it makes me smile as it no doubt makes many reasonable and frustrated people smile, but that would actually be unconstitutional, whereas Obama raising the debt ceiling on his own would merely be in a grey area legally, but helped greatly toward legitimacy because extraordinary crises call for extraordinary action.
07:49 PM on 07/29/2011
So, even if there were people on social security, medicare, medicaid, VA, in those states, you think they should be punished? That's exactly the mindset that got us into this mess. . . and it's not only unreasonable, but hateful. Exactly what you accuse the repubs of being.
photo
JudgeCCrater
From under a NJ boardwalk thanks to free Wi-Fi!
02:24 AM on 07/29/2011
I find it amazing that even while a big chunk of the lawyers in Washington DC are urging Obama to utilize the 14th Amendment, you still find idiots here braying that it would be an impeachable offense. Does NOT attending law school somehow make you more familiar with the US Constitution than an entire city full of law school graduates?
photo
1oldhippie
yes, WE can again!
08:08 AM on 07/29/2011
The Pres, taught Constitutional Law. Seems he's about to 'school' the GOP!
09:45 AM on 07/29/2011
The president taught three classes specific to minority voting rights and status. Hardly the topic here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
miketothad
trollslayer
09:26 AM on 07/29/2011
lol