Obama Defends the Constitution...

T

trefoil

...thereby taking his oath seriously, unlike some of his predecessors:


Obama’s 14th Amendment Stand Counters Critics’ ’Wimp’ Factor Claims: View

Many of President Barack Obama’s friends on the left are disappointed with his performance during the debt-ceiling negotiations. In fact, they are starting to lose their enthusiasm for his re-election.
To be blunt, liberals are becoming convinced that Obama is a wimp. The best evidence of his wimpiness is said to be his failure to use his presidential power under the 14th Amendment to override or simply ignore the debt-limit law. But about this particular matter, Obama’s liberal critics are wrong. Regarding the Constitution, this was Obama’s finest hour.
...
Obama, asked about asserting a 14th Amendment right to raise the debt limit unilaterally -- or at least threatening to do so -- said: “I’ve talked to my lawyers. They are not persuaded that this is a winning argument.” And that was that.
...
Obama’s stand on principle is especially noble because he might well have been able to use the public debt clause to have his way, even if his interpretation of it was wrong. First, he could have threatened to use it, even knowing in his heart that he would not. And second, there’s a good chance the Supreme Court would not take such a case.

We are accustomed to having the court settle our big questions and tend to forget that judicial review is not in the Constitution: It’s just because, procedurally, the Supreme Court decides last that its view carries the day. But the court tends to stay away from arguments between the other two branches. Also, there is the question of standing: Who would have the right to bring a suit for the court to rule on? Maybe no one.
Clinton, in a rare episode of back-seat driving, said that in Obama’s place he would have asserted presidential power “without hesitation,” to avoid the debt ceiling, “and force the courts to stop me.” Clinton should know better than that.
Presidents and other government officials have an independent obligation to obey the Constitution. They’re not supposed to give defiance a try and see what happens. Courts have no armies and, ultimately, no power to stop anyone from doing anything. Their authority depends on constant reinforcement and what they call in the theater a “willing suspension of disbelief.” Macho talk like Clinton’s doesn’t help.
No doubt it would have been useful for Obama to have that arrow in his quiver. Rejecting it on constitutional grounds, when everyone around you is advising otherwise, is not wimpy behavior. In fact, it’s pretty courageous.
More...

So much for all this crap about going back to the "original intent" of the Constitution. You could make a pretty strong case that the 14th Amendment's clause on this stuff: "the validity of the debt of the United States, authorized by law...shall not be questioned", gives the President the authority to state, quite simply, that if the Congress authorized x level of spending and y level of taxes, they implicity authorized z level of debt, and therefore screw this stupid debt ceiling, and cite the 14th amendment in support.
But it would be stupid. Obama is not in the habit of giving his enemies the tools to destroy not him, but his side of the aisle: noticing this, the maniacs on the right would proceed to stage a massive campaign for a balanced budget amendment, and win. Obama was playing chess; his opponents, both liberal and conservative, checkers.
There's one place where he's forced the Republicans into supporting his side of the argument. This goes completely unappreciated by the press, mesmerized as they are by the Tea Party.
Let's see if anyone can figure out what that might be...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top