Maybe Obama should just get it over with. Let the Republicans impeach him this spring,

[pnwmom]

Last edited Wed Jan 2, 2013, 04:12 AM - Edit history (1)

for lifting the debt ceiling limit unilaterally; let the Senate find him not guilty; and then continue with the rest of his Presidency.

He'd have put the issue of the debt ceiling behind him, and helped elect more Democrats to the House in 2014.

Getting impeached within a few months of his inauguration might be the best thing that could happen to him, a kind of political vaccination against any future impeachment attempts.

Although some might view this as a stain on the Presidency, others might view it as an act of bravery . . . .

What do you think?



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html

The provision in question, Section 4 of the amendment, was meant to ensure the payment of Union debts after the Civil War and to disavow Confederate ones. But it was written in broader terms.

“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,” the critical sentence says, “shall not be questioned.”

SNIP

Another possible reaction to unilateral action from Mr. Obama is impeachment. Professor Tribe said that was “not politically a very plausible scenario.”

Professor Levinson was less certain. Impeachment by the House of Representatives “seems to me quite likely.” But, he added, “it is also literally unimaginable that the Senate would convict.”

[brush]

1. What a nutty idea. Pls think up something less ridiculous to post, something worth our time. nt

[pnwmom]

4. Do you think the idea of Obama ignoring the debt ceiling is a "nutty idea," even though

a number of constitutional lawyers are saying that Obama would be justified in doing this because of the 14th amendment?

Or is it a "nutty idea" to think that the House would impeach him for this, even if he had valid constitutional grounds?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html

The provision in question, Section 4 of the amendment, was meant to ensure the payment of Union debts after the Civil War and to disavow Confederate ones. But it was written in broader terms.

“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,” the critical sentence says, “shall not be questioned.”

SNIP

Another possible reaction to unilateral action from Mr. Obama is impeachment. Professor Tribe said that was “not politically a very plausible scenario.”

Professor Levinson was less certain. Impeachment by the House of Representatives “seems to me quite likely.” But, he added, “it is also literally unimaginable that the Senate would convict.”

[Ivywoods55]

14. I truly believe that after the last debt debacle...

the President has had ever creditable constitutional lawyer in the U.S. Researching how he can "lawfully", through the Constitution, raise the debt limit without the threat of impeachment. I do not believe he is that "weak" or addle minded to make the threat of not negotiating "at all" unless he and this administration had something up their sleeves. I am just speculating of course, but even this President, at least I believe, would not be so bold to make such a statement unless he was very sure of what he will do under threat of republican sabotage and obstruction when it becomes time to raise the debt limit. You better believe the Republicans will be ready to do their worse, even if it means destroying the Nation, they did it once, they will try to do it again. Get the ready, because Republicans are going to try to the U.S. Citizens again.

[DrToast]

28. Because nobody is going to want to buy legally questionable debt

You do realize that we still have to SELL the debt even if Obama ignores the debt ceiling.

So what price are people investors going to demand if there's a chance the debt will be deemed illegal by the Supreme Court?

Ignoring the debt ceiling is a terrible idea.

[pnwmom]

29. That might be the case for long term bonds, but not the more commonly sold

3 month bonds. By the time such a case worked its way up to a ruling by the Supreme Court, the investors could have bought and sold several times.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx#page1

Some will raise a concern that potential buyers of Treasury securities may be scared off by a fear that bonds sold over the debt limit may not be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. However, given that the vast bulk of Treasury securities are 3-month bills that will turn over many, many times before this issue ever reaches the Supreme Court, it is doubtful than anyone will be concerned about that. And the Federal Reserve could assure investors that it will always be a buyer for such securities.

[still_one]

5. I think the op is suggesting if the republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling the president can

Exercise the 14th amendment which most likely either be sent to the Supreme Court or they would try to impeach him

[pnwmom]

10. Yes -- except the SCOTUS would probably not get involved, either.

The Constitutional remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors is impeachment and a trial.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Sorry, but a big reason Clinton was so ineffective in his second term was because of impeachment.

It made him personally popular, but politically impotent.

[jberryhill]

3. I don't think impotence was the problem

[Drunken Irishman]

8. ...

[pnwmom]

6. If the Rethugs went after the second popular Democratic President in a row,

they might be the ones who are proven impotent.

With regard to Clinton, you might be confusing cause and effect. The same antipathy on the part of the Rethugs that led to the impeachment also led to their obstructionism during the rest of his Presidency.

[still_one]

7. There is a big difference between Clinton and Obama. Clinton allowed himself to be setup

If Obama exercised the 14th amendment, would they impeach him for that or take it to the Supreme Court if they refused to raise the debt ceiling?

Frankly, Except for that I do not think they have any grounds for impeachment, and if they were reckless enough to try it they would self-destruct, and I believe Obama and the Democrats would be more effective and powerful

[pnwmom]

9. Some legal experts say it's unlikely the Courts would get involved.

Constitutionally and historically, the only remedy is impeachment, which requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html

“This is not a circumstance,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, “in which the courts have any plausible point of entry.”

Professor Balkin agreed. “This is largely a political question,” he said. “It is unlikely courts would decide these questions.”

Some law professors have put forward possible legal claims that might overcome threshold requirements for lawsuits, like the one in which plaintiffs show that they have been directly injured and so have standing to sue. “It’s unthinkable,” Professor Tribe responded, “that the courts would allow a gimmicky lawsuit to proceed.”

The president, moreover, can move quickly, but court cases take time. “At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?” Professor Balkin said. “It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.”

[cleanhippie]

22. It was his actions and the way he handled himself that made him unpopular.

The country KNEW the impeachment was a farce, but it was his childish denials and obfuscations (...that depends on what the definition of "is" is) that made him unpopular.

[pnwmom]

27. And yet, the Rethugs in the House were even more unpopular.

And they still are.

[cleanhippie]

32. True.

Just goes to show that in politics, one need not be popular.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I don't know why these eminent scholars...

are ignoring the "authorized by law" wording. Only Congress has the ability to issue debt, and it has created the debt ceiling requirement as part of its debt-issuing rigamarole.

Ergo-- if the debt ceiling isn't raised by Congress, there can be no new debt.

If there is no money in the pot, Treasury cannot simply write checks that will be backed by some unauthorized linked credit account.

Just the possibility of US checks bouncing will be too much for the world to handle and everything will go to hell.

[pnwmom]

13. I think their reasoning is that the original bills

constitute authorization by law -- regardless of any self-imposed debt ceiling. If Congress doesn't want to spend so much on Social Security, for example, it should amend the Social Security law -- not impose an artificial debt ceiling and require the President to figure out which of its many lawfully authorized commitments should not be funded.

But let's say Obama accepts the reasoning of the 14th amendment proponents, and ignores the debt ceiling. What would the consequence be? The House would almost certainly impeach him, but it's impossible to imagine 2/3 of the Senate voting to convict him.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Well, they thought about it last year and decided...

not to try it, so it would take a lot more than this to bring it up again.

The new Congress is going to go through this again with the debt ceiling in a few months, but no one knows what it will do if leadership changes and when Obama's re-election isn't part of anyone's plan.

If things still get so bad that they think about it again-- they'll try to calculate how the markets will take a dump, how many will be thrown out of work, not get checks... If they think they can get more good than bad out of it they may risk it. This administration isn't known for Hail Mary passes, though, so I'd bet they put the idea away again.

[Kablooie]

12. I'm sure they are working like demons right now to gin up something to impeach him on.

He doesn't have to do anything.
The Tea-liban will find some excuse to impeach him no matter what.

[Cosmocat]

16. Oh yeah, it IS going to happen ...

nm

[lunatica]

17. How do you suggest he get himself impeached?

Since when do Presidents have the power to get themselves impeached?

[pnwmom]

18. If he ignored the debt ceiling, impeachment would almost certainly happen

in the GOP dominated House, even if he and all the Dems thought he was entirely justified.

[klook]

26. There is no way Obama could manage to get himself impeached

... yet another example of his inherent weakness and willingness to comprimise.

[NPolitics1979]

19. Let Biden convince 22 Democratic US Senators to vote to convict

This will give Biden the incumbency advantage and Biden in return can appoint Obama to the US Supreme Court in 2017 after he wins re-election to a second term.

[Iggo]

20. Best possible reply to this thread!

[pnwmom]

24. I like the SCOTUS idea, except in 2017, during Biden's first term.

[NPolitics1979]

30. Should he get on SCOTUS the moment RBG,ASS,AK,and SB steps down.

Ginsburg is likely to step down within couple of years. Have Former WI US Senator Russ Feingold replace Ginsburg.
Scalia,Kennedy,and Breyer are likely to step down after the end of Obama's 2nd term beginning of Biden's first term- Obama could be the person who replaces Breyer,
It would be great if he succeeds Scalia.

[pnwmom]

31. I think all the right-wing justices will hang on at least for the next four years.

They won't want Obama to appoint their successor.

I do hope that Ginsburg does what she should have done a couple years ago. It' time.

[bemildred]

21. He should definitely ignore their "threats" and keep running the executive branch. nt

[bemildred]

23. He should not lift a finger to prevent it.

it is an empty threat, anyway.

[LiberalFighter]

25. If they try to impeach we have a weapon that was not available under Clinton.

Social Media -- Twitter Bombs

[Sunlei]

33. That will never happen, not in a million years.