Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Justice, Politics

Can The Default “Crisis” Be Solved Unilaterally?

Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger

Following up on the continuing saga of the debt default crisis and our earlier articles, I had a few more thoughts on how the crisis should be handled. The first suggested solution came from President Clinton who argued for it in a recent interview.

“Former president Bill Clinton said he’d solve the debt crisis Old School Style: just raise the roof. In an interview with the National Memo, Clinton said he believed a deal would be struck before August 2, but if he were in charge, and both sides failed to reach an agreement, he would simply raise the debt ceiling himself using powers granted under the 14th amendment of the Constitution. The amendment says that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Clinton said he’d “force the courts to stop me.” “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said.”  Bill Clinton

At first I did not think much about it because it was a concept that I was unfamiliar with, but the idea has not gone away. It struck home when I read an article by two conservative law professors partially supporting the same process that President Clinton had suggested.

“PRESIDENT OBAMA should announce that he will raise the debt ceiling unilaterally if he cannot reach a deal with Congress. Constitutionally, he would be on solid ground. Politically, he can’t lose. The public wants a deal. The threat to act unilaterally will only strengthen his bargaining power if Republicans don’t want to be frozen out; if they defy him, the public will throw their support to the president. Either way, Republicans look like the obstructionists and will pay a price.  Where would Mr. Obama get his constitutional authority to raise the debt ceiling?  Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. “ New York Times  (Registration may be required)

The proposal by Prof. Posner and Prof. Vermuele is not the same as the one advanced by President Clinton, but the result is the same. Posner and Vermuele are suggesting that the President has authority to act in order to protect that the laws are faithfully executed. These two professors are suggesting this approach as a constitutional matter and as a negotiating stance. I understand their approach, but I am not sure it isn’t too late for this approach since the White House already shot down President Clinton’s suggestion.  Reuters

In light of the risks involved if we do default, I have to agree with Prof. Posner and Prof. Vermuel’s negotiating approach and their reliance on the President’s duty to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. However, it is not a perfect answer or a perfect theory. Something needs to get done and one of these arguments just might get the country over this self-inflicted hurdle.  How should Congress and how should the President act in order to stave off a default that will kill Main Street?  The default clock is ticking!
Additional Source:  Think Progress

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger

76 thoughts on “Can The Default “Crisis” Be Solved Unilaterally?”

  1. Oro Lee1, July 27, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Talk about a reversal of roles — a bunch of old white guys trying to do in a younger black man because he wants to pay the bills on time. I wish Molly ivins was here.
    ———
    !hahahaha~ ! yup

    …and big DITTO on Molly Ivans

  2. Elaine,
    Great Molly Ivins clip. She is missed!
    anon nurse,
    You and Swarthmore and Sheila Jackson Lee could be correct.

  3. And I would have to agree with Sheila Jackson Lee and Swarthmore mom…

  4. Thanks for the Molly Ivins piece. She was only 62 when she died…

  5. That is not the best reading of the 14th Amendment, but some are urging him to do it and let them sue him.

  8. ekeyra,
    he did have some fast talking lines to squeeze in!
    Oro Lee, it is a situation Molly Ivins would have loved to write about.

  9. Talk about a reversal of roles — a bunch of old white guys trying to do in a younger black man because he wants to pay the bills on time. I wish Molly ivins was here.

  10. SwM,

    Boehner overplayed; Obama underplayed; nobody led … it’s the usual summer rerun.

  11. Raff,

    Someone has to call attention to the profound absurdity of this entire debate. What good is paying bills with borrowed money thats just going to leave you with ballooning interest payments that will overtake every other expenditure in the budget. And thats at current artificially fed suppressed interest rates. God forbid they let those go up. People who save money will actually see a return for their prudent actions instead of watching their savings deteriorate through inflation so the government can borrow more money to send them a social security check.

    Also Im impressed by anyone who can work “quantitative statutory budget restraint” into a fat beat.

  14. It’s kind of moot. Obama has shown a relative lack of leadership here much like health care reform. He wants to bring parties together to solve a pragmatic problem, which is a core aspect of community organizing. Unfortunately, some communities are too splintered or acrimonious to be organized or lack strong indigenous leadership. All these problems are here. Obama needed to get out front sooner and start with what we needed, a clean bill raising the debt limit.

  16. eniobob,
    I am not sure that the Tea Party believers really undestand the consequences of their actions. Go Bears!

  17. Swarthmore,
    thanks for the link. I read the quotes from McCain and I wonder if Mr. Boehner read them?
    ekeyra,
    Thanks for that “interesting” rap!

  19. raff:

    Thanks I’ve been wanting to vent,everything is now protracted.If it was Blue last week and the current crop of Republican reps said it was blue last week its Red this week though.
    This is my angle,to really make this whole thing unreal is that the NFL has settled its strike so therefore IMHO a lot of people are going to take their eyes off the ball(no pun intended)the debt debate and make the assumption well they are getting ready to play football,how bad can all this debt talk be.I’m quite sure these people have no clue or should I say until the President said for us to call our reps,did these people realize that they had people which I have said before are being affected by all this nonsense,and I feel that its really dawning on the Tea Party that quite a few of their members are going to be affected by this default if it happens.

    Do the 14th amendment,Mr President everything is going to be historical,no matter what happens.

    Off topic :

    But as far as the football strike is concerned,this is what happens when you have a union and all your members are on board.

    I hope people get that message.

Comments are closed.