... Last month, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner suggested that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” If the Obama administration were to embrace this view, the country could avoid default in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised by the Aug. 2 deadline.
Republicans, who would lose an opportunity to inflict major budget cuts if the debt ceiling is declared unconstitutional, have been highly critical of the idea. Yesterday, Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel reported that Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) said it would be “an impeachable act” if President Obama declares the debt ceiling is unconstitutional.
ThinkProgress spoke with one of Scott’s colleagues, Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX), today about the matter. Olson told us that others in the GOP caucus are also discussing impeachment and that Scott is “not a lonely voice” on the issue... Think Progress
Even liberal Hendrik Hertzberg raises the issue in an intelligent look into the "negotiations" the White House has entered into with Congressional Republicans. "Negotiations" in quotes because we know (and they've confirmed) that Republicans no longer negotiate. Keep in mind that refusal to negotiate is one of the definitions of a genuine terrorist (without quotes).
If the current “debt limit” hostage negotiations fail—and they deserve to fail if their result is economically suicidal short-term cuts in public services and/or draconian longer-term cuts and/or no or almost no upper-end tax increases—will President Obama seize the Constitutional option?
I’m not talking about, or only about, the much-discussed Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, ... shall not be questioned.
I’m talking about Article II, Section 3, which says that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” ...Hendrik Hertzberg, New Yorker.
Except there's another law, as Hertzberg points out.
Congress has also made a law which states that Congress can subsequently decree that the government may no longer borrow the money to meet the obligations which Congress itself has enacted into law.
The President must therefore ask himself: Which of these laws shall I faithfully execute? The many or the one?
So even Hertzberg gets to the impeachment question.
Politically, the Constitutional option would have a salutary side effect. It would reverse the demoralization with which the President’s willingness not only to negotiate with the Republican hostage-takers but also to accede in advance to almost all of their demands has infected his own supporters. It would show some fighting spirit. It might even be the domestic-policy equivalent of the bin Laden raid. Admittedly, it might also spur the House Republicans to impeach the President. They’re just crazy enough, or scared enough of their Tea Party base, to do it. But remember how that worked out last time? And this time, the President would be impeached not for lying about sex but for saving the country.
Good point.
Keep in mind that a long, drawn-out impeachment process in Congress as a way around "taking care of business" could enrage and polarize the country even more. I'm pretty sure that rage and polarization has become a Republican goal, not just an outflow of their politics.
___
The use of the 14th Amendment is getting a lot of attention. Jonathan Chait also has a good point.
...For the hard core default denialists among the House GOP caucus, there's no reason at all to want a deal. The baseline is that we don't lift the debt ceiling and therefore immediately have a balanced budget entirely through spending cuts. Any deal simply increases the size of government from that baseline.
Obviously, the House leadership does not agree with that analysis. The leadership understands that failing to lift the debt ceiling would have horrific consequences. But they also don't want to cross the base, and they don't want to have to round up a lot of their members and force them to cast a vote that could end their career via right-wing primary challenge.
If you're John Boehner, it's going to be very hard to navigate this issue without infuriating either your voting base or your financial base. You want this issue to go away. In that sense, the 14th Amendment solution might be your best outcome. Indeed, Boehner's ideal scenario may be if Obama came out for the 14th Amendment solution and it passes legal muster, allowing him to avoid any ideological compromise while assuring business leaders that Obama will prevent any of the consequences of his position.
Granted, the Constitutional Option would deny Boehner the chance to wring concessions on spending from Obama. But are those concessions worth risking his own job and the jobs of many of his members? I doubt it. Besides, Boehner could always cut a budget deal with Obama outside the debt ceiling context. ...TNR
___
The American people, apparently, range from uninformed to psychotic when faced with the debt ceiling issue.
Members of Congress read polls. No poll is perfect, but the results of the recent one from AP-Gfk leave little room for doubt about the current unpopularity of raising the debt limit. Not many more than one in three Americans (38%) say they are in favor of raising it. Yet half (53%) believe that if the debt limit is not raised the U.S. would face a major economic crisis. And -- an even more amazing number -- 37% of those believe that the limit should not be raised even if that does result in a crisis! ...Ted Kaufman, HuffPo
Go ahead! Burn America to the ground! See if Americans care!
