[jh4freedom]

Section 4.
“What does the 14 Amendment have to do with Obama?”

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment:
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.

[neverbluffer]

Key words there are “authorized by law” The President is not a lawmaker, Congress is!!!!!!!!

Therefore, he cannot act unilaterally...

[WHBates]

Yes but:

"Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The President has no authority without congress enabling him to do so.

[DanMiller]

That's what Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment says. Notice that it does not say anything about enforcement. That's where Section 5 comes in. It says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Nowhere does any amendment to the Constitution override Article II, Section 8, which provides,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . . To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.

Those roles are pretty clearly within the sole authority of the Congress. A debt limit abrogation by the President would be to borrow additional money on the credit of the United States, authority to do which Article II does not grant Him and which the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant Him either.

The problem is that although the President has no authority to override the Constitution (just as Willie Sutton had no authority to rob banks) He has the power to do so (just as Willie Sutton did) until the Supreme Court catches up with Him. In this case, it is doubtful that it would ever do so because it would be very difficult to show "standing" to sue. And, even were that managed, it would take years for a case to wend its way through a district court, an appellate court and, just maybe, get to the Supreme Court. Should it eventually get there, the Supreme Court might well conclude that the question is a political one, not for it to decide.

I very much hope He doesn't do it. However, if He does, it will be very difficult to claim that everything bad that happens is the fault of the "obstructionist" Republicans. That's the only possible good I can see coming from it, but it could be very useful come next year.

[WHBates]

Yes but:

"Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The President has no authority without congress enabling him to do so.

[PapaBear3625]

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, "Authorized by law" is a key phrase here. Debt not authorized by Congressional legislation is not valid.

All it would take is one congressman to make a public statement that Congress "could not guarantee" the payment of any T-bills issued beyond the debt ceiling, and government credit stops DEAD.