OFFLINE

Sen. John Cornyn warned President Obama on Sunday to not even consider interpreting the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment to bypass Congress and raise the debt limit without its approval.

"That's crazy talk. It's not acceptable for Congress and the president not to do their job and to say somehow the president has the authority then to basically do this by himself," Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge on the Texas Supreme Court.

The proposal that Obama re-interpret Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to justify raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit has been gaining traction in Democratic circles since Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told reporters that the Constitution's language could support the president's raising the limit without congressional approval.

'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 during a discussion hosted by Politico in May.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and others on Capitol Hill reportedly acknowledged that the idea is percolating, and had been presented to the president.

"It's certainly worth exploring. I think it needs a little more exploration and study," he said during a conference call with reporters held Friday.

Without addressing efforts to invoke the Constitution, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Sunday the president and congressional negotiators shouldn't even be discussing a debt deal privately.

"Congress is the constitutional place for this to be decided," said Sessions, who is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Asked during a press conference Wednesday whether the debt limit was constitutional, the president glossed over the question, saying, "I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here."



the fact that this is even being considered, is scary to me.

OFFLINE

Senator Sessions if a former judge however, and has a pretty good idea of what this issue is about.  If the president could bypass Congress, it would eliminate the balance of powers, which goes against the way our govt was set up.

1st Libya and the War Powers Act.  
Now this.

This president is getting dangerous.

OFFLINE

Don't get too ahead of your self, the article makes no mention of the President's intentions, only Mr. Geithner and Mr. Schumer's opinions.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Don't get too ahead of your self, the article makes no mention of the President's intentions, only Mr. Geithner and Mr. Schumer's opinions.

you're right, and this isn't a slam against obama (although i'm sure if he could get away with it....). however, imo, this is just a scary illustration of how the far-left views our system. when it doesn't suit them, just bypass it. BUT, republican and democrat congresses have been doing this with republican and democrat presidents for a long time. congress was SUPPOSED to be the epicenter of our federal government. and for many years it was. but since our very founding, particularly in the last century, the executive has slowly begun acquiring more and more powers.

i recommend everyone read this wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imperial_Presidency

"Over the history of the US, a pattern emerged that the President assumed greater powers during the emergency. After the emergency had passed, then Congress would assert itself. This occurred after the Civil War and World War I but after World War II Congress did not assert itself as much because of the Cold War. In 1946 Democratic President Harry S. Truman wanted the Republican Congress to approve aid to Greece and Turkey. He found that by turning a reasonable program into the Truman Doctrine and exaggerating the issue, he got the appropriation.

In 1950, Truman had sent troops to the Korean War without Congressional approval. In 1952, Truman feared a national strike by the steel industry would impair the military’s ability to fight the Korean War. He ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate the steel mills without Congressional approval. The Supreme Court found the actions unconstitutional. The majority of justices stated that the Commander-in-Chief clause of the Constitution did not apply to domestic matters and that the President must comply with existing laws on this matter.

By 1952, Truman increased the Armed Services to 3.6 million and that by itself resulted in an increase in presidential power. Before this only Lincoln had increased the Army without Congressional approval. The addition of 50 treaties increased presidential responsibilities and power in the 1950s.

In the decade after the Korean War, most liberal and conservative members of Congress agreed on Presidential control of foreign policy."

i also learned a new term:

"Plebiscitary democracy is defined as where a leader is elected but once elected has almost all of the power. Another explanation of the Nixon model would be a personal dictatorship or an elective kingship under the Constitution where the President represents the democratic majority and any opposition is considered antidemocratic. Public responses are limited to voting during elections."

but it only goes up to nixon, as the book it's based on was written in the 70's, however, there have been new editions covering later administrations.

in this next article:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/06/hes-our-imperial-president

we see the same thing continuing today.

"Abroad, Obama claims the power to start wars at will; scoop up your email and phone records without answering to a judge; assassinate you via drone strike far from any battlefield, and -- should your relatives complain -- keep the whole thing secret in the name of national security.

At home, Obama has summarily fired the CEO of General Motors, America's largest automaker; flouted bankruptcy law to shaft Chrysler's creditors and pay off his union allies; pressured half-nationalized car companies to produce pokey little electric cars, had his National Labor Relations Board assert veto power over a private company's decision to move a factory to a "right to work" state; and, via imperial edict, began restructuring the industrial economy by imposing restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions despite Congress' refusal to pass cap-and-trade legislation.

But shouldn't we find that array of unilateral powers worrisome no matter who holds the office?

Sometimes it's hard to remember that the presidency was supposed to be a constitutionally limited office. George Washington didn't imagine himself "commander in chief of our economy," in Hillary Clinton's bizarre formulation; our first president doubted that his powers as CINC even allowed him to attack hostile Indian tribes without congressional authorization.

By 1789, our Constitution's Framers were convinced that the Republic needed "an effective national executive, but they continued to believe, as deeply as any of the militants of '76, that power corrupts [and] any release of the constraints on the executive -- any executive -- was an invitation to disaster."

Today, that healthy skepticism has been eroded by the spirit of faction. Red Team/Blue Team partisanship so clouds our vision that many of us only fear the executive unbound when the scepter and crown pass to the "other team."

"Republicans, Democrats shift on whether government is a threat," Gallup reported in October. During the Bush administration, 57 percent of Democrats thought the federal government threatened American liberty, but only 21 percent of Republicans agreed.

The parties had flipped positions by 2010 -- even though Obama's presidency is every bit as imperial as George W. Bush's -- and then some.

Conservatives who defended every excess of the Bush administration now rail against Obama's Imperial Presidency, and liberals who considered the Bush era one long descent into the dark night of fascism seem blithely indifferent to the present Oval Office occupant's multiplying executive power grabs.

Apparently, phrases like "he killed his own people" only grate when pronounced in a clipped, West Texas accent -- otherwise, "wars of choice" against third-rate dictators go down smoothly."


how true. this is dangerous stuff.

OFFLINE

bumpsies

OFFLINE

bumping this up one more time