Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 06:33 PM Oct 2013

Should 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

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should the White House be talking to the Supreme Court Justices...? (Original Post) kentuck Oct 2013 OP
Who ever can help... I saw an article on here a day back.. yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #1
Or the President could go ahead... kentuck Oct 2013 #3
'Talking,' NO, highly improper. elleng Oct 2013 #2
Do they talk...? kentuck Oct 2013 #4
Only via the Solicitor General (or another lawyer) and only through channels. longship Oct 2013 #5
Thanks. kentuck Oct 2013 #7
Well, the Solicitor General is the President's advocate through the DOJ. longship Oct 2013 #14
That makes sense. kentuck Oct 2013 #15
I think that would be a really good way to get impeached and removed from office. longship Oct 2013 #16
I don't think they could get two-thirds of the Senate to remove him from office? kentuck Oct 2013 #17
That's what Nixon thought, too. longship Oct 2013 #22
I think most folks agree with you on that point. kentuck Oct 2013 #25
Possibly. But they'd file the case through DOJ. longship Oct 2013 #28
Personally... kentuck Oct 2013 #31
I am with you all the way, kentuck. longship Oct 2013 #33
When there is a 'case and controversy,' yes, elleng Oct 2013 #6
+1 pinboy3niner Oct 2013 #24
The White House has rejected this. former9thward Oct 2013 #8
I think I might ask for a couple of more opinions... kentuck Oct 2013 #9
It was not just two advisers. former9thward Oct 2013 #10
agreed G_j Oct 2013 #11
They do have a credible argument... kentuck Oct 2013 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author lastlib Oct 2013 #13
The US Supreme Court does not do advisory opinions treestar Oct 2013 #18
How did they get Justice Roberts to rule on the constitutionality of the ACA? kentuck Oct 2013 #20
Several states sued to overturn the ACA. Nye Bevan Oct 2013 #21
Who could have standing the challenge the legality of the debt ceiling? treestar Oct 2013 #27
One suggestion I read was holders of credit default swaps. Nye Bevan Oct 2013 #35
Hell no MFrohike Oct 2013 #19
In that case... kentuck Oct 2013 #23
Lots of legal authorities say he could. Then it's up to Congress pnwmom Oct 2013 #26
Thanks! Excellent read! kentuck Oct 2013 #29
I say yes MFrohike Oct 2013 #30
SCOTUS WOULD NOT HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. djg21 Oct 2013 #32
Thanks! kentuck Oct 2013 #34
This is the way I see it, strategery blunder Oct 2013 #36
This was an excellent post/thread... 2banon Oct 2013 #37

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
3. Or the President could go ahead...
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 06:40 PM
Oct 2013

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..

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
4. Do they talk...?
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 06:41 PM
Oct 2013

When they bring relevant and necessary cases?

Do you think they should bring it before the Supreme Court??

longship

(40,416 posts)
5. Only via the Solicitor General (or another lawyer) and only through channels.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 06:50 PM
Oct 2013

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.

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
7. Thanks.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 07:20 PM
Oct 2013

Then how do they bring the case? Doesn't the Solicitor General work for the Executive Branch??

longship

(40,416 posts)
14. Well, the Solicitor General is the President's advocate through the DOJ.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:06 PM
Oct 2013

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)
15. That makes sense.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:10 PM
Oct 2013

The President would not personally contact the Supreme Court, I would not think?

longship

(40,416 posts)
16. I think that would be a really good way to get impeached and removed from office.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:17 PM
Oct 2013

But, I may be talking out of my hat.

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
17. I don't think they could get two-thirds of the Senate to remove him from office?
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:21 PM
Oct 2013

I could not see that.

longship

(40,416 posts)
22. That's what Nixon thought, too.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:34 PM
Oct 2013

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)
25. I think most folks agree with you on that point.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:39 PM
Oct 2013

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)
28. Possibly. But they'd file the case through DOJ.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:46 PM
Oct 2013

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)
31. Personally...
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:50 PM
Oct 2013

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)
33. I am with you all the way, kentuck.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 11:02 PM
Oct 2013

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)
6. When there is a 'case and controversy,' yes,
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 06:50 PM
Oct 2013

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.

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
9. I think I might ask for a couple of more opinions...
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 07:39 PM
Oct 2013

...other than the two White House advisers? I don't think it is wise to so quickly close that door.

former9thward

(32,023 posts)
10. It was not just two advisers.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 07:43 PM
Oct 2013
At a press conference Monday, President Obama confirmed that he would not use the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling unless both houses of Congress gave him the express authority to do so.
“If [Congress] wants to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I’m 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/

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
12. They do have a credible argument...
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 07:50 PM
Oct 2013

<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 don’t 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)

treestar

(82,383 posts)
18. The US Supreme Court does not do advisory opinions
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:25 PM
Oct 2013

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)
20. How did they get Justice Roberts to rule on the constitutionality of the ACA?
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:29 PM
Oct 2013

How did they bring it before the Court?

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
21. Several states sued to overturn the ACA.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:32 PM
Oct 2013

Some courts ruled in favor, and some against. The appeals went all the way up to the SCOTUS.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
27. Who could have standing the challenge the legality of the debt ceiling?
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:41 PM
Oct 2013

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)
35. One suggestion I read was holders of credit default swaps.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 11:23 PM
Oct 2013

But it's a tricky question and I don't think anyone knows for sure.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
19. Hell no
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:27 PM
Oct 2013

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)
23. In that case...
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:34 PM
Oct 2013

The President can invoke the 14th Amendment and ignore the wishes of the Congress, in regards to the debt limit?

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
29. Thanks! Excellent read!
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:46 PM
Oct 2013

<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)
30. I say yes
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:48 PM
Oct 2013

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)
32. SCOTUS WOULD NOT HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:53 PM
Oct 2013

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

strategery blunder

(4,225 posts)
36. This is the way I see it,
Wed Oct 2, 2013, 11:49 PM
Oct 2013

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)
37. This was an excellent post/thread...
Thu Oct 3, 2013, 01:40 AM
Oct 2013

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...



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should the White House be...