Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Clinton: I'd use 14th Amendment
Politico ^

Posted on 07/19/2011 6:46:51 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Bill Clinton: I'd use 14th Amendment

By: Jennifer Epstein July 19, 2011 06:25 AM EDT

Former President Bill Clinton would invoke the 14th Amendment - “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me,” he says - to raise the debt ceiling if he were in President Barack Obama’s shoes, with the deadline to raise the limit just two weeks away.

“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 in an interview with journalist Joe Conason.

Clinton said he would turn to the Constitution “if it came to that,” but doesn’t think that Obama will need to. “It looks to me like they’re going to make an agreement, and that’s smart,” he said.

Obama has sidestepped direct questioning about invoking a clause in the amendment to the Constitution that has been interpreted by some to mean that the president has the authority to take all necessary steps to maintain the good credit of the United States. But a lawyer for the Treasury Department has publicly refuted that interpretation, saying that Secretary Timothy Geithner has “never argued that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the president to disregard the statutory debt limit.”

Clinton said that raising the debt ceiling “is necessary to pay for appropriations already made.” Congressional Republicans, he said, “can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.”

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; fourteenthamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 07/19/2011 6:46:56 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This stupid line of thinking has already been eviscerated as totally false. That doesn’t mean they won’t try it, though.


2 posted on 07/19/2011 6:49:49 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Unfortunately for Clinton is the fact-checking. No budget was passed by the previous Congress. The Pelosi-Reid Congress took a ‘pass’ on the responsibility of doing a budget as they were either too busy or lacked the will to do so.


3 posted on 07/19/2011 6:51:39 AM PDT by Maryland Man (NOW is the time for conservatives to rise up!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
YES, please Obama, take Constitutional advise froms a man that was impeached and disbarred for perjury.
4 posted on 07/19/2011 6:52:38 AM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Is this not INSANITY?

We actually have People and not just Politicians, rooting and cheering for an opportunity to go even farther into debt by TRILLIONS of Dollars.

They are not just spending all of the disposable income of current and future American Tax Payers. They want to spend the entire wealth of every Nation on the Planet.

This is how Wars begin, with Greed, Jealousy and Envy.

You have and I want it!

5 posted on 07/19/2011 6:54:36 AM PDT by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Bill Clinton: I'd use 14th Amendment

Use it like ya did a certain blue dress?

6 posted on 07/19/2011 6:54:53 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

BS he’d use Monica.


7 posted on 07/19/2011 6:54:53 AM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
What in the world are you babbling about, XXX-42?

14th Amendment, section 4:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The most important part is the phrase "authorized by law". The debt ceiling is the authorization by law. No increase in debt ceiling = no authorization to incur debt. Those bonds would immediately be not covered by the "shall not be questioned". Thus every one will be questioned and subject to litigation. Who in the world would buy those junk bonds knowing that?

I have not seen a single response by libs claiming the 14th amendment means there is no real debt ceiling even try to respond to the "authorized by law" phrase.

8 posted on 07/19/2011 6:54:53 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (The Dems demanding shared sacrifice are like Aztec priests doing it while cutting out my heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Use it like ya did a certain blue dress?

No, like a certain cigar.

9 posted on 07/19/2011 6:57:13 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment
LOL, one could say clitoon is nothing more than a jail house lawyer today.
10 posted on 07/19/2011 6:57:13 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maryland Man
The Pelosi-Reid Congress took a ‘pass’ on the responsibility of doing a budget as they were either too busy or lacked the will to do so.

They didn't pass a budget because they knew that their opponents would use that as a weapon against them in the coming election. That strategy did not work very well............

11 posted on 07/19/2011 6:58:16 AM PDT by Red Badger (PEAS in our time? Obama cries PEAS! PEAS! when there is no PEAS!..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

One could only hope the AnointedIdiot will do such.
Impeachment proceedings come to mind.....


12 posted on 07/19/2011 6:59:00 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

There’s no budget, so Congress hasn’t “appropriated” anything.


13 posted on 07/19/2011 7:00:20 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Except that I don’t believe he even has the credentials to do that. What a disgrace.

This is typical of liberals. I will break the law deliberately, and force the courts to stop me.


14 posted on 07/19/2011 7:00:27 AM PDT by rlmorel ("When marching down the same road, one doesn't need 'marching orders' to reach the same destination")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cranked

Horn Dog speaks.


15 posted on 07/19/2011 7:01:47 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Eh ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

....and no vote to hang around their necks like an anchor.............


16 posted on 07/19/2011 7:02:38 AM PDT by Red Badger (PEAS in our time? Obama cries PEAS! PEAS! when there is no PEAS!..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment
Getting tired of the Clintons and Clintonites involved in this administration. The State Department is more like Dept. Of Muslim appeasement and pushing UN Soros agenda.
17 posted on 07/19/2011 7:02:49 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

“No increase in debt ceiling = no authorization to incur debt. “

Actually, that debt ceiling is a useless measure to appease the masses. It has no bearing on law or Congress whatsoever. No Congress may limit the debt of a future congress as no congress may dictate spending to a future congress.

That debt ceiling simply says that is the limit a President may spend regardless of congressional authorization to spend otherwise. In no way does it limit congress.

This is all for show to make this out of control government seem like it is taking the debt seriously so you will vote for them. The fact is, congress can simply approve a new budget regardless of the debt ceiling.


18 posted on 07/19/2011 7:02:49 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I often wonder what it would take to get the Supreme Court to fast-track something for review.

Seems to me they don’t want to involve themselves in anything.

There’s another part of the 14th amendment I wish they would review.


19 posted on 07/19/2011 7:03:26 AM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

no constitutional atty here - but the argument is that since the money was appropriated then THAT is the “authorized by law”.

Added is that there was no budget last year.

So can anyone clear this up? I’ve not seen a post that addresses both sides at all.

Does “appropriated” give authorization to spend even though no budget was passed? Does a budget not being passed matter?


20 posted on 07/19/2011 7:03:47 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Maryland Man
Unfortunately for Clinton is the fact-checking. No budget was passed by the previous Congress. The Pelosi-Reid Congress took a ‘pass’ on the responsibility of doing a budget as they were either too busy or lacked the will to do so.

Great Point!!

My torch and pitchfork are ready!
21 posted on 07/19/2011 7:09:53 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty (Shaking My Head on a daily basis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

How lawless our lawmakers are, it’s almost cartoonish.


22 posted on 07/19/2011 7:11:02 AM PDT by Skeez (O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Will this somehow help BJ continue to be a serial rapist ?


23 posted on 07/19/2011 7:12:58 AM PDT by bodfish ((Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
They didn't pass a budget because they knew that their opponents would use that as a weapon against them in the coming election. That strategy did not work very well............

Yes and then the budget that DEAR LEADER did send to Congress is something that no person with a grip on the current state of the union would send.
24 posted on 07/19/2011 7:13:31 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty (Shaking My Head on a daily basis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Right now the treasury has a hard time finding buyers for US debt, it would be impossible to find buyers for any debt issued without the consent of the people (House).


25 posted on 07/19/2011 7:13:56 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Every time this man opens his mouth I am reminded how glad I was on January 20th, 2001.

I have little doubt that if 9/11 happened on Clinton’s watch, he’d STILL occupy the Oval Office today with no prospect of leaving after next year. He would have pushed through an executive order extending his presidency indefinitely and would have dared the courts to argue otherwise. After all, how many divisions has the Supreme Court?


26 posted on 07/19/2011 7:14:18 AM PDT by MWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

[[Former President Bill Clinton would invoke the 14th Amendment - “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me,”]]

Clinton _might_ have done that. And, if he did, the courts would have stopped him.

Obama _might_ just try this, as well. But if he does, the courts _won’t dare_ to stop _him_.

Let’s just speculate that they might try. I’d wager that Obama would simply ignore the courts. Really.

His argument would be, “we can’t pull the rug from under the less fortunate, we _must_ help those in need”. And I’ll also speculate that at least 45-50% of the American public would swallow that argument....

Just sayin’....


27 posted on 07/19/2011 7:16:38 AM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

But WHY does Slick say this NOW, interject himself into the race..other than to differentiate Obama from himself ( and by inference, perhaps also Hillary)


28 posted on 07/19/2011 7:16:41 AM PDT by ken5050 (Save the earth..it's the ONLY planet with CHOCOLATE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

The entire 14th Amendment should be challanged in federal court. It was added to the Constitution in 1878 by the force of arms of the union army. The South never wanted it and their portion of 3/4s of the states for its inclusion should be discounted.

The 14th Amendment is unconstitutional.


29 posted on 07/19/2011 7:17:32 AM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Congress needs to remember who holds the purse. It’s those pesky checks and balances again and every once in a while someone on the left derides the Constitution and wants to replace it. I wonder why.


30 posted on 07/19/2011 7:20:19 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Falcon4.0
This line of thinking will lead the US down the path trod by Wiemar Germany, Argentina and Zimbabwe. If Obama wants a Road Warrior future, this will get him there.
31 posted on 07/19/2011 7:23:05 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

The Senate rejected Obama’s budget 97-0.............Even the Dems couldn’t stomach it..................


32 posted on 07/19/2011 7:26:20 AM PDT by Red Badger (PEAS in our time? Obama cries PEAS! PEAS! when there is no PEAS!..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

There is no doubt the perverted sink stainer use the 14th amendment. Convoluted interpretations of the constitution are part of the liberal mindset. Common sense and intelligent interpretations are anathema to them.


33 posted on 07/19/2011 7:35:46 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

I don’t think it is unconstitutional, but I wholeheartedly agree that the interpretation thereof has been totally wrong.


34 posted on 07/19/2011 7:38:09 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kjo

I don’t think it is unconstitutional, but I wholeheartedly agree that the interpretation thereof has been totally wrong.


35 posted on 07/19/2011 7:38:35 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kjo

I don’t think it is unconstitutional, but I wholeheartedly agree that the interpretation thereof has been totally wrong.


36 posted on 07/19/2011 7:38:35 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

hey bubba...shut up cigar boy


37 posted on 07/19/2011 7:43:27 AM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Well Bubba does know more about the Constitution than any other disbarred liberal lawyer. Notice how these scumbags love the Constitution selectively.
38 posted on 07/19/2011 7:46:12 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
This sexual predator and accused rapist should be talking to us from prison (along with his so-called wife). Too bad he's a spokesman for anything.

I pay no attention to him, her/it, or that grifter in our White House.

39 posted on 07/19/2011 7:50:08 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

You can say that again.


40 posted on 07/19/2011 7:52:51 AM PDT by BlueYonder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Unfortunately, traitors like clinton and obama are quick to divert attention from this part of the 14th Amendment:

3. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

In plain english it means that traitors like clinton and obama are not fit to drive a garbage truck in Chicago.

Maybe obama would like to read section 4, which prohibits reparations to former slaves and their ancestors.


41 posted on 07/19/2011 7:57:51 AM PDT by wendell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

well, coming from a guy who was willing to push the edge of the envelope in any way he possibly could, and who appears to have largely gotten away with it....what would you expect?


42 posted on 07/19/2011 8:05:11 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Slick Willie is setting up Obama for Constitutional failure and a big loss in 2012.

Revenge is the nectar of a scoundrel.


43 posted on 07/19/2011 8:18:19 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen (BHO II naturalized as U.S. Citizen after becoming an Indonesian National)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

Klintoon is urging nobama to step right on that landmine, figuring hitlery will be drafted to Save the Day.
Slick was the grandest user of polls and all the dem’s internals without any doubt are showing landmines and quicksand ahead for the WON.


44 posted on 07/19/2011 8:47:17 AM PDT by dusttoyou ("Progressives" are wee-weeing all over themselves, Foc nobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

“Constitutional Scholar” was used to describe Bill Clinton as well as Barak Obama prior to the launch of each political career. I’m starting to think that the term is a euphamism for “Underemployed Lawyer”.


45 posted on 07/19/2011 8:56:00 AM PDT by Tallguy (You can safely ignore anything that precedes the word "But"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

>>Actually, that debt ceiling is a useless measure ...

The debt ceiling simply says that is the limit a President may spend regardless of congressional authorization to spend otherwise. In no way does it limit congress.<<

So, explain why it’s “useless.” It’s the limiting of Obama’s spending that’s at issue here, and so far everyone seems to be taking it pretty seriously. Obama’s hit the debt ceiling, and Congress now has control unless they give it up by giving him what he wants.


46 posted on 07/19/2011 9:10:21 AM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Principled

>>no constitutional atty here - but the argument is that since the money was appropriated then THAT is the “authorized by law”.<<

Spending and borrowing (to support spending) are two entirely different matters.

You can sign a contract to purchase something and be legally obligated to pay for it whether you have the money or not. You authorized someone to dun you for what you owe them.

You can also sign a contract to borrow money, agreeing to pay interest and principal as stipulated in the contract.

But they are two different matters entirely. Maybe the reason people get confused about this is that we often do both at once, signing contracts to purchase a house or car, for instance, while simultaneously signing lending agreements that enable us to get the money to make the purchase. Still, they are two separate matters.


47 posted on 07/19/2011 9:14:44 AM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Thanks for that information -

so while the spending _was_ appropriated, it was not _authorized_ so 14th amendment won’t fly.


48 posted on 07/19/2011 9:27:04 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Principled

>>so while the spending _was_ appropriated, it was not _authorized_ so 14th amendment won’t fly.<<

You’re welcome, but it would be less confusing if you instead said: Spending was authorized (appropriated), but the debt to fund the spending was not authorized.

Even then, if a contract hasn’t been signed, say with a defense contractor for instance, the spending might have been appropriated, but the government might not yet be on the hook for it and can just revoke the appropriation. Funds are redirected all the time in that manner by all levels of government. Appropriations are essentially budgets set by law and can be changed unless the money is committed by a formal contract with the party providing the service being paid for.

All this talk about using the 14th is just liberal BS, though I have no doubt a liberal would force the issue through the courts if he felt like doing so. Pathetically, a liberal court would probably ignore the Constitution and let it happen, but that’s another issue.


49 posted on 07/19/2011 9:41:38 AM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

“so far everyone seems to be taking it pretty seriously.”

As a grandstanding exercise. Congress authorizes pending. The President can only spend what they authorize.

What they are saying is that Congress has only authorized spending of so much and they are reaching that so much. Congress can simply authorize spending more. This “Debt Ceiling” is not anything any future Congress must obey. This entire talk about a “debt ceiling” is no ceiling at all. With or without it, Congress can authorize spending whatever they desire but the President can only spend what they authorize. The President was never able to ever spend more than that, but he could spend into debt if Congress authorized it. The law limited his ability to add debt without their approval even though they authorized the spending.

This is all pretending to be serious about the debt. The congress has never failed, since its inception in 1917, to increase the debt ceiling. No future Congress is ever bound by a previous Congress concerning spending. That is the Constitutional authority of Congress.

The law of the “debt ceiling” was the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. All it did that was authoritative was to limit the President’s (read: Treasury) ability to issue debt to pay for spending authorizations of Congress. So, since 1917, if Congress authorized spending beyond the debt ceiling, the President no longer could issue Treasury instruments of debt to pay for it. It also means Congress has acted wantonly in it spending and has lost control and track of what it is spending such that it did not know or understand that they were spending into debt and the President needed to issue instruments of debt.

So, the seriousness that you see is that if Congress does not authorize the President to spend more than the debt ceiling authorizes then he cannot add debt to cover Congress’s out of control spending. In no way does a debt ceiling prohibit Congress from authorizing any level of spending or debt that it desires. The vote they take on it is purely symbolic for themselves and an authorization for the President.


50 posted on 07/19/2011 9:44:37 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson