General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould the White House be talking to the Supreme Court Justices...?
What is the procedure to get the Supreme Court to rule on a case? Does the Congress have the right to not pay our debts? Does the President have the authority to execute the laws? Does the 14th Amendment apply to the Congress? Would it be too much of a gamble to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the authority of the Congress to not pay our debts?
==========
<snip>
Proponents of the option point to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that 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. It follows, then, that the president could raise the government's borrowing limit, independent of congressional gridlock -- a potential way forward as the government again approaches a shutdown.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/14th-amendment-option_n_4018599.html
yuiyoshida
(41,832 posts)kentuck
(111,103 posts)and execute the laws per our Constitution and our 14th Amendment and let the Congress take it to the Supreme Court if they wanted to..
elleng
(130,973 posts)Bringing relevant and necessary cases, absolutely!
kentuck
(111,103 posts)When they bring relevant and necessary cases?
Do you think they should bring it before the Supreme Court??
longship
(40,416 posts)The USA has strict separation of powers between the three branches -- read your Constitution (the latter to OP, not responders).
It would be extraordinarily improper for the President to communicate officially with a SCOTUS justice. That would certainly result in an investigation and could result in impeachment proceedings.
Then how do they bring the case? Doesn't the Solicitor General work for the Executive Branch??
longship
(40,416 posts)Or at least that's how it works out in practice with respect to SCOTUS.
But because of the separation of powers the relationship is based on procedures established at the founding, I would imagine.
IANAL. But I do know that the POTUS cannot just ring up a SCOTUS justice. He can have a lawyer file something with the court. AFAIK, that would normally fall to the Solicitor General, or some other lawyer within DOJ.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)The President would not personally contact the Supreme Court, I would not think?
longship
(40,416 posts)But, I may be talking out of my hat.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)I could not see that.
longship
(40,416 posts)Until he was disabused of that thinking.
Obstructing justice and abuse of power is not to be trifled with. The POTUS cannot use the power of his/her office to directly influence the courts on any manner in any case. Not even Nixon tried that. But he was a lawyer and would have known it was a no-no.
Still, the Saturday Night Massacre was bad enough. (We're approaching the 40th anniversary this month.) It's what kicked impeachment into high gear. Still, it was nine months before the bill of impeachment was approved by the House Judiciary Committee and Nixon's subsequent resignation in the face of inevitability.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)However, I have heard of a fast track to getting an issue in front of the court? I think this is something that the President should keep on the table. Not saying that he hands a justice a hundred dollar bill under the table. Nobody believes that.
longship
(40,416 posts)I may be full of shit on this, but I don't think so. I guess I have to just shrug. You're getting into esoteric matters where experts in law should decide.
Thankfully President Obama likely knows the limits and powers of his office.
As always,
Best regards.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)I would prefer to see the President take it upon himself to protect our nation from default, if it ever reaches that point. I think he would have that authority.
longship
(40,416 posts)But the House Republicans smell blood in the water. I would prefer that PBO not add any chum to it before he jumps in. (So to speak.)
elleng
(130,973 posts)they 'talk' through their filings, they don't hang around and lobby.
The Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy that is, an actual dispute ...
A term used in Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution to describe the structure by which actual, conflicting claims of individuals must be brought before a federal court for resolution if the court is to exercise its jurisdiction to consider the questions and provide relief.
A case or controversy, also referred to as a Justiciable controversy, must consist of an actual dispute between parties over their legal rights that remain in conflict at the time the case is presented and must be a proper matter for judicial determination. A dispute between parties that is moot is not a case or controversy because it no longer involves an actual conflict.
Thanks for bringing the facts about the legal proprieties.
former9thward
(32,023 posts)Obama does not think it would be legal. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/white-house-rejects-14th-amendment-to-raise-debt-ceiling.html
kentuck
(111,103 posts)...other than the two White House advisers? I don't think it is wise to so quickly close that door.
former9thward
(32,023 posts)If [Congress] wants to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, Im happy to take it, he said. But if they want to keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/14/president-obama-backs-away-from-invoking-14th-amendment-on-debt-ceiling/
though some think the GOP might try to Impeach. about their speed..
kentuck
(111,103 posts)<snip>
Pfeiffer said employing such a tactic is impractical.
Would people buy bonds that are legally questionable? he said. If you were buying a car, would you ever buy a car when the title was in doubt? The answer to that question is no.
I dont know why we would assume that investors would buy bonds that are legally in question, that could at any day be invalidated by a court, he said. So it is an impractical solution to the problem.
Proponents cite the language of the 14th amendment, which says that 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.
Response to kentuck (Reply #12)
lastlib This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There has to be a case with an issue in controversy.
Obama could just do it and then get sued by some teabagger saying it was unconstitutional. There'd be the whole bit about taxpayer standing. It could actually be quite interesting.
Though I think Obama did not think much of the argument.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)How did they bring it before the Court?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Some courts ruled in favor, and some against. The appeals went all the way up to the SCOTUS.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I would think maybe that would be something the President and only the President could do. Or perhaps the creditors of the US.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But it's a tricky question and I don't think anyone knows for sure.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)The court is a legal arbiter, not a political arbiter. The elected branches are equal to the court and have the same authority to interpret the constitution as the court. Substituting the judgment of the court for the judgments of the two elected branches and the people would actually be that rarest of all creatures, judicial activism.
kentuck
(111,103 posts)The President can invoke the 14th Amendment and ignore the wishes of the Congress, in regards to the debt limit?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)how he would react.
Did you see the NY Times debate about that today?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/10/02/can-obama-ignore-the-debt-ceiling/emergency-powers-let-the-president-borrow-beyond-the-debt-limit
kentuck
(111,103 posts)<snip>
The contrary view that the president must sit helplessly as the economy collapses, fettered by a reading of an 18th-century document that not even the founders would have believed appropriate reflects a legalistic mentality that none of our great presidents has possessed or acted on.
===============
It would take a President with a lot of courage to challenge the Congress in such a way, I would think?
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Presidential misconduct has had a remedy for over 200 years: impeachment and removal. Impeachment is inherent political, though it takes a legal form. The court, with the exception of the CJ, simply has no role in political disputes like this. Just about every time the court does wade into a political dispute, we end up with "brilliant" decisions like Dred Scott or Plessy.
I haven't given the matter a lot of thought but I suspect invoking full faith and credit would be less likely to trigger after-the-fact court intervention than allowing a default. If he invokes it, the debts get paid and nobody gets a cause of action to sue Uncle for unpaid obligations. The government was allowed to issue the bonds, so there's an implicit authorization to pay them. Given that, and the fact that individual representatives rarely have the standing to sue in a dispute with the executive, the only real question is whether he can pull it off politically. Personally, I usually dislike the president's "reasonable adult" persona because it's too evenhanded even from an objective view. That being said, I think it would be an asset in selling this policy because the reasonable adult pays his bills. It's really hard to beat an argument about responsibility with some diatribe about FREEDOM!!!11!!!
djg21
(1,803 posts)The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction (jurisdiction to hear cases in the first instance) in the few limited circumstances set out in 28 U.S.C. Sec.1251, which provides:
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
Otherwise, the Supreme Court may grant certiorari to hear cases appealed from a state's highest court or cases that have made their way through federal appellate courts.
Here' a nice discussion of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/original_jurisdiction
Very educational.
strategery blunder
(4,225 posts)and I should preface this with I am not a lawyer.
The President doesn't want to use the 14th option, but God forbid the House of Representatives allows this fiasco to drag out until the 17th and Obama is faced with "The Government will run completely out of money reserves and borrowing authority in the next 60 seconds."
At this point, I see not one but four options:
1) President says we pay as we go. All government expenses are paid as receipts come in. Honoring the national debt comes before anything else, including national security and defense. There would be enough inflow to keep the national debt serviced, but everything else including essential government services would get hammered. Very, very, very badly. If not eliminated entirely. Massive austerity on a scale not even before seen under Hoover results, we enter the Greater Depression.
2) Call up the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and start printing. I'm not sure to what extent this is even an option because I don't really know if this would involve "borrowing" from the Federal Reserve, and thus breaching the debt ceiling. Cue Weimar Republic hyperinflation.
3) Default. I don't think I need to explain this one.
4) The 14th Option.
By this point, I suspect the President will have very strong public backing/a mandate for Option Number Four. If the President's hand is truly forced literally at the last minute (God forbid), it is the least bad option. Don't get me wrong, it's still a bad option as no one would know if the bonds would later be invalidated and therefore the interest rate would skyrocket, taking the economy crashing down with it. But the other available options, should the Cruz Missile Kamikaze Party force the Union to that point, are even worse. (While Option 2 might superficially seem like an alternative, it will almost certainly lead to hyperinflation, whereas Option 4 at least has a reasonable shot at containing the damage, especially should it later be upheld.)
If it comes to the 14th, the Congress (in practice, the House of Representatives, as the Senate has the grown-ups in that room) then has two options:
1) Ratify the President's actions. The subsequent debt issues are honored, the economy is shaken badly, but it might (eventually) be recoverable if the Republicans self-destruct and leave the grown-ups in charge to clean up the mess.
2) Or they could sue the executive to have the debt ceiling breach declared unconstitutional. This would take a while to work its way up to SCOTUS (at which point I'm sure Wall Street will be ringing up its servants demanding they affirm the 14th in an attempt to salvage the economy, judicial ethics be damned). Horrific economic damage occurs in the meantime, but if the SCOTUS upholds the 14th Option, Republicans self-destruct and responsible adults are left to try to clean up the mess (but it will take much longer than it would if Congress had assented to the 14th in the first place).
The President doesn't want to use the 14th. His authority to do it is untested and tenuous. If the Congress should fail to honor its responsibilities, it is his last option to save the country. The public would support him doing what he must, but would the courts?
He will do what he must. But of course he will hold his cards close to his chest, and deny that he would openly defy the recalcitrant House until the choice becomes either that or allowing the Union to implode.
I don't want to go back to 1860. Why is it come to this, that I even have to contemplate the day being barely more than two weeks away.
2banon
(7,321 posts)The kind of stuff I like to see more of on DU.
A manufactured crises has been created by a faction of the Republican party (i refuse to use the term "GOP" if not psychotic, certainly sociopathic) is holding our country hostage - what the hell can actually be done about that?
I love the questions, the various responses based on historical grounding, and offered with various points of views in a manner which conversations should happen, and I got to learn some things I hadn't known before.
Bravo to everyone here...