Congressman Ready to Impeach Obama For Debt Limit Scheme

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

GOP Rep. Tim Scott Warns Of Obama Impeachment

Rep. Tim Scott said that if President Obama should invoke a clause in the 14th Amendment in order to bypass Congress and borrow beyond the debt limit, the Republican lawmaker would consider that an act worthy of impeachment.

“This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is that is an impeachable act from my perspective,” said Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) at a meeting sponsored by the Tea Party group LowCountry 9.12 Project on Tuesday.

“There are a lot of things people say, ‘Are you going to impeach the president over that?’ — No. But this? This is catastrophic,” continued Scott. “This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers over something this significant.”

http://newsone.com/nation/washington-watch/newsonestaff4/tim-scott-obama-impeachment/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Would Congress not be in violation of the Constitution if it fails to raise the debt ceiling and hence effectively question the validity of the public debt of the United States which is and has been authorized by Congress? Will the good Congressman then move to impeach himself and his collegues for failing to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?

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.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[웃 910]

GOP Rep. Tim Scott Warns Of Obama Impeachment

[SMR 368]

Would Congress not be in violation of the Constitution if it fails to raise the debt ceiling and hence effectively question the validity of the public debt of the United States which is and has been authorized by Congress? Will the good Congressman then move to impeach himself and his collegues for failing to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?

How does not raising the debt ceiling effectively question the validity of the public debt of the US? The US can repay its public debt based on current revenues. It may not be able to continue funding all of the entitlements at the same time. But refusing to borrow more money in no way questions the validity of the present debt.

[jundp 191]

Rep. Tim Scott said that if President Obama should invoke a clause in the 14th Amendment in order to bypass Congress and borrow beyond the debt limit, the Republican lawmaker would consider that an act worthy of impeachment.

Which clause?

“This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is that is an impeachable act from my perspective,” said Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) at a meeting sponsored by the Tea Party group LowCountry 9.12 Project on Tuesday.

My position = my perspective. Redundant.

“There are a lot of things people say, ‘Are you going to impeach the president over that?’ — No. But this? This is catastrophic,” continued Scott. “This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers over something this significant.”

If this one man (the POTUS) is attempting to "usurp the entire system [..]" then why aren't more members of Congress outraged?

You lost me at "Tea Party"

Edited July 8, 2011 by jundp

[mawilson 2,133]

Which clause?

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 debt ceiling is a statutory limit which restricts (i.e. "questions") total federal debt.

[jundp 191]

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 debt ceiling is a statutory limit which restricts (i.e. "questions") total federal debt.

I thought this was the clause to which the congressman was referring. I guess I just don't understand why this is an impeachable offense...But I'm no poly-sci or con-law person.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How does not raising the debt ceiling effectively question the validity of the public debt of the US? The US can repay its public debt based on current revenues. It may not be able to continue funding all of the entitlements at the same time. But refusing to borrow more money in no way questions the validity of the present debt.

That's not exactly true. Unless we stop doing anything as a nation including defense. The fact of the matter is that all expenses that are to be paid have been authorized by Congress. Those that refuse to raise the debt ceiling have also passed a budget resolution that would require - you guessed it - raising the debt ceiling since that blueprint does not balance the budget for decades to come even under the rosy and unrealistic assumptions that were used to score it. There will be no sustained 5% economic growth and there will be no sustained unemployment rate significantly under full employment ( which you would have at ~4%). Hence, that blueprint would actually never, ever balance the budget and consequently add to the debt into eternity. Now, you may be able to perform that sort of mental spagat that justifies taking two irreconcilable positions. I am not.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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 debt ceiling is a statutory limit which restricts (i.e. "questions") total federal debt.

Taken literally, the debt ceiling should then limit what Congress can spend - i.e. authorize by law. Of course, the debt ceiling is not supreme to any other law the Congress passes and hence rather questionable. These supposed deficit hawks spent over a trillion dollars for Medicare Part D, spend well over a trillion dollars for two wars, shrunk federal receipts by several trillion on top of that regardless of a debt ceiling that supported none of that. I said it before and I say it again, this is not about the debt and the deficit. The passage of Paul Ryan's deficit and debt busting blueprint by the House GOP and the support of the same by most GOP Senators runs counter to their stance on the debt ceiling, the deficit and the debt. This is about dealing a blow to the beast they've labored to starve for decades.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's not exactly true. Unless we stop doing anything as a nation including defense. The fact of the matter is that all expenses that are to be paid have been authorized by Congress. Those that refuse to raise the debt ceiling have also passed a budget resolution that would require - you guessed it - raising the debt ceiling since that blueprint does not balance the budget for decades to come even under the rosy and unrealistic assumptions that were used to score it. There will be no sustained 5% economic growth and there will be no sustained unemployment rate significantly under full employment ( which you would have at ~4%). Hence, that blueprint would actually never, ever balance the budget and consequently add to the debt into eternity. Now, you may be able to perform that sort of mental spagat that justifies taking two irreconcilable positions. I am not.

Congress constantly authorizes programs that are later not appropriated for, in effect, stopping the implementation of a program by not funding it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Taken literally, the debt ceiling should then limit what Congress can spend - i.e. authorize by law. Of course, the debt ceiling is not supreme to any other law the Congress passes and hence rather questionable. These supposed deficit hawks spent over a trillion dollars for Medicare Part D, spend well over a trillion dollars for two wars, shrunk federal receipts by several trillion on top of that regardless of a debt ceiling that supported none of that. I said it before and I say it again, this is not about the debt and the deficit. The passage of Paul Ryan's deficit and debt busting blueprint by the House GOP and the support of the same by most GOP Senators runs counter to their stance on the debt ceiling, the deficit and the debt. This is about dealing a blow to the beast they've labored to starve for decades.

Authorization is not the same as appropriation. Without appropriation, the program is not funded. Happens all the time.

http://www.whs.mil/library/DODLawPDF.pdf

Edited July 8, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Authorization is not the same as appropriation. Without appropriation, the program is not funded. Happens all the time.

http://www.whs.mil/library/DODLawPDF.pdf

Yes, Sherlock. This does not apply to permanent appropriations which cover - among others - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Nice try, though.

[scandal 951]

This entire thread would make a lot more sense if the Congressman was threatening impeachment for an action Obama actually HAD taken or was CONTEMPLATING taking. In fact, the Obama Administration is in pretty much the same place as the loudmouth. Namely, there is no Constitutional "out" to raising the Debt Limit, Congress in fact MUST ACT, and Congressional Republicans are playing a dangerous game of chicken with all of our prosperity at stake.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/08/treasury-official-disputes-14th-amendment-wiggle-room-on-debt-limit/

Treasury Official Disputes 14th Amendment Wiggle Room on Debt Limit

By Damian Paletta

Treasury Department Secretary Timothy Geithner has not asserted that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment can be used to circumvent the government’s debt ceiling, a top agency official wrote on Friday.

Treasury General Counsel George Madison, in a letter responding to an op-ed in Friday’s New York Times, wrote that “like every previous Secretary of the Treasury who has confronted the question, Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress.”

The op-ed, written by Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, said that “Several law professors and senators, and even Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, have suggested that section 4 of the 14th Amendment, known as the public debt clause, might provide a silver bullet.”

The question of whether the White House can invoke the 14th Amendment to avoid a default on U.S. government debt has created a buzz in Washington in recent weeks. Treasury Department officials believe the U.S. government will hit the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling on Aug. 2, and that the country could default on its obligations if Congress doesn’t vote to raise the ceiling.

Many lawmakers will only raise the ceiling if there’s a broader deal to reduce the deficit, and negotiators are still working to see if they can put together a deal in time.

If time runs out, what about the 14th Amendment?

The Reconstruction-era amendment, in part, reads: “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 a statutory limit has restricted total federal debt since 1917. Congress has raised it repeatedly–10 times since 2001.

Mr. Geithner has read parts of the 14th Amendment in public to emphasize the importance of the U.S. debt, something that led some to believe that he was asserting that the 14th Amendment gave the Obama administration a constitutional Plan B.

Not so, Mr. Madison wrote Friday.

“Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit,” he wrote.

President Barack Obama sidestepped a question about whether the 14th Amendment could be invoked to avoid a default, saying on Wednesday he didn’t “think we should even get to the constitutional issue.”

Administration officials have repeatedly been artful in their responses to questions about the 14th amendment issue. None have said that they would absolutely rule out the possibility of invoking it if a default appeared imminent. Instead, they say it doesn’t seem realistic and it’s not something they plan on doing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This entire thread would make a lot more sense if the Congressman was threatening impeachment for an action Obama actually HAD taken or was CONTEMPLATING taking. In fact, the Obama Administration is in pretty much the same place as the loudmouth. Namely, there is no Constitutional "out" to raising the Debt Limit, Congress in fact MUST ACT, and Congressional Republicans are playing a dangerous game of chicken with all of our prosperity at stake.

The Republicans do not care about your prosperity or that of your neighbor. They care about two things:

1) Make Obama a one term President

2) Deal a decisive blow to the beast they've been laboring to starve and weaken for decades

Everything else is posturing and grandstanding and whatnot. These guys don't care about the budget, the deficit, the debt or the debt ceiling.

[scandal 951]

The Republicans do not care about your prosperity or that of your neighbor. They care about two things:

1) Make Obama a one term President

2) Deal a decisive blow to the beast they've been laboring to starve and weaken for decades

Everything else is posturing and grandstanding and whatnot. These guys don't care about the budget, the deficit, the debt or the debt ceiling.

I know where you're coming from, and in general I feel it too.

I do believe that your points 1) and 2) are the prime motivators that Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor wake up to each morning and go to sleep with each night.

On the other hand, these guys are not insane and they do have a survival instinct. They too (and their friends and families) have assets and investments that are at risk from a Treasury default. I'm pretty sure that at some point that survival instinct will kick in. Nobody - least of all the Wall St. paymasters of the GOP - really wants a default. They just want to extract as many Democratic pounds of flesh as they can before yielding.

The ones I'm most worried about are the Tea Party loose cannons who got elected last fall and are not on the Wall St payroll, and don't listen to Boehner. I tend to believe them when they say they categorically won't vote for any increase under any circumstance. Our salvation lies in having enough "mainstream" (cough cough) GOP votes that Boehner and Cantor will eventually bring to the forged last-minute consensus.