Amid all the sturm and drang about the default, there has been almost no mention of an obscure provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This isn't the better known Equal Protection clause, it's the little-known Section 4: the public debt of the United States may not be questioned. Note: not simply "the US must pay its debts" but the debt can't even be questioned. Simply put, the United States cannot default on its debt. A default is flatly unconstitutional. If Congress won't raise the debt ceiling, the Executive branch has no alternative but to continue to service the debt whether the Republicans like it or not.

The delicious twist is that the Republicans were the party who were responsible for passing this provision in the first place.

All this hate from the right-wing trolls is DELICIOUS. Keep balling your little hands into fists and kicking your little legs. Adorable!

@3 your already paying for their care anyway, without them contributing anything. So why not try it this way, i.e. giving them the chance to pay something.

After all your way, the current way puts our health care cost, as a percentage of GDP, at twice that of any other first world country. Oh yeah and our outcomes are the worse of any other first world country all of whom pay LESS.

God your dumb.

How much you want to bet @2 masterbates to frank miller comics til he bleeds?

If the deadline passes and no deal, nobody is to blame but the President even if he doesn't deserve it. That's the way it should be.

oh, bullshit, raindrop. keep repeating that to yourself while you're cowering in your bunker.

@2: don't count your chickens just yet. That section of the 14th has seldom been litigated and there is almost no existing case law establishing what it means. If Congress reneges on its responsibility we are entering uncharted constitutional waters. Obama would have a free hand in interpreting it, which (given his constitutional law background, and Chicago politics roots) will be very interesting. Nor should you assume the conservatives on SCOTUS will save the Republicans: the "may not be questioned" is among the most sweeping statements in the Constitution, and was a product of the fury the Radical Republicans aimed at the defeated South which wanted the Union to stand good for their war debt (as Britain and France also wanted.) It is debatable whether SCOTUS would want to get drawn into a dispute between the Executive and Legislative branches, or whether they would even have standing ("may not be questioned") or whether Obama would have to pay any attention to them if they did.

Break out the popcorn, Constitutional Law junkies. This is going to be one for the history books. At a minimum, I think the debt ceiling is going to be rendered unconstitutional, and the power of the Congress is going to be significantly diminished vis a vis the Executive branch.

1, that's not irony, that's simply history. American politics has shifted constantly over the decades. When the 14th Amendment was drafted, the Republicans were the liberal party, Democrats were the conservatives.

7, Ah, nothing like the sweet smell of Obama Derangement Syndrome, eh?

Keep in mind that when the ACA (or hopefully its replacement, single payer) is fully implemented and more popular than ever, the GOP will claim it as their own and will fully deny ever having opposed it.

And most of the republican base will gobble that up, with full citations and links to false quotes and outright lies supporting them.

They are a selfish and evil group, through and through.

10: yes, you're right, but it will put the Republicans in a tough spot if the Democrats are smart enough to use it as a talking point.

The imminent economic collapse as a result of a debt default has absolutely nothing to do with the ACA.

According to the conspiracy theories that I’m starting, the 1% want the US eCONomy to implode as the next act in their coup d’état. They’ve spent the last 30 years buying and stealing the majority of our nation’s assets, and now they want it all. Look what happened in Russia when their financial system collapsed in 1998: The middle class was completely wiped out, and then the plutocrats, oligarchs, and gangsters swept in and seized the last of the country’s assets since they were the only ones left with the means and resources.

This is their endgame to annihilate the middle class.

And if that's just too Pollyanna-ish for you, never forget that sadistic psychopaths--like the KKKoch Brothers and Congressional RepubliKKKans--don't feel human emotions like sympathy, pity, or remorse, and they'll gleefully murder every last one of us if it means one more dollar for them.

@13: imminent economic collapse? Hardly. Nothing as big as the US economy is going to explode quickly.

@9 that outcome plus Republicans losing the House would be glorious. We'd get single payer by 2016.

@16: I wouldn't bet on single payer passing Congress even if the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a working majority in the House. However, if the Democrats can hang onto the White House until 2020 we'll probably have de facto single payer through Executive branch regulation, no matter what Congress does.

@ 7, you ARE aware that "even if he doesn't deserve it" is in complete contradiction with "That's the way it should be," aren't you?

The time for any of this nonsense 'courage' from so-called moderate Republicans is long past. They've already helped horribly wound this country, even before we default, all so their leaders could feel less bad about their sagging libidos/electoral-chances.

RINOs no longer exist.
They all own it.

@17 yep, it'd be the fiscally responsible thing to do if Dems can hold the White House until 2020. Alas we can continue to expect the Republican party fight tooth and nail against fiscal responsibility.

@20: if the Republican leadership in the House allows a default, then Obama addresses the nation to announce that he will not permit a default no matter what (thereby saving the retirement plans for millions of middle-class taxpayers) the Republicans are going to be shut out of all the major levers of power in Washington for a generation - just as they were after Hoover. They will be crushed in 2014. No one will trust them to run the dog pound, much less the country.

@18: It is contradictory, but it's a premise that military commanders accept and he is the commander in chief. Not that this is a military matter - but Obama must remember his oath is to faithfully execute the office of the president of the United States. And he is failing at that. He should follow the advice of his predecessor Richard Nixon, who once in describing one of his political battles said as president "there comes a time when you must shit or get off the pot."

@21, unfortunately the Republicans are zombies -- they can't be killed.

China seems to be a bit upset about our debt. It would be cool if the Chinese mafia arrived in DC ready to shoot the Republicans in the kneecaps.

@23: Then it would be better to remain a zombie than to switch political parties I suppose.

@22: you're right about one thing: it's got nothing to do with the military. So, military analogies are inappropriate.

In this case, Obama's oath of office should compel him to take charge in the event that Congress is derelict in its constitutional duties. Not sure what reasoning led you to the "Obama's to blame no matter what" conclusion, but then you're not famous for your reasoning acumen.

@21 leaving aside for the fact that Obama has already stated he doesn't think your strategy is a good one. The Republican majority in the House has already proven itself to be nothing more then vandals, saboteurs and terrorists. So Obama pulling that move, valid or not, will only result in the house attempting to impeach.

Yeah I'd bet they'd loose that battle too and yes that might hurt them in the 2014 Senate races, some State and local races, but at best it'd be a 8 seat gain in the House for Dems leaving the idiots still in control of the House.

Being that they are giving us scant reason to believe they are anything other then a party of nihilists, I don't expect the Republicans to start to sober up till 2018 at the earliest.

Raindrop you prove my point as always, the children of Reagan are brain damaged.

@29 Once you actually use your shift key, then you can make fun of others' grammar. Until then kettle, pot and whatnot.

@10: Oh, great. That is just what we need, the President being able to interpret the Constitution without oversight and giving even more power in the Executive Branch.

What you are saying is antithetical to the purpose of the Constitution. I get that our Congress is broken. But that doesn't mean that it always will be, nor does that mean that we should set a precedent that will affect future Congresses that aren't broken. The Republicans might fuck us. They might send us into another Depression. But we will survive that and they won't. It is not worth destroying the Constitution for this. The Executive MUST be constrained at every possible chance. The Executive already has broad authority over our financial system, the ability to make war without the approval of Congress (according to their interpretation of Commander-in-Chief rules and what they consider to be the unconstitutional War Powers Act), the ability to make secret interpretations of laws without the oversight of Congress, and the ability to compel and gag individuals or corporations about private information they possess without the oversight of Congress. Let's just get it over with and stop dicking around. Dissolve Congress and appoint the President dictator for the period of their term. If we are going to shit on the Constitution, we might as well make sure it is a huge steaming turd.

@10: Oh, and by the way, have you thought of what will happen if the President does unilaterally ignore the debt limit? He will be immediately impeached, and then the conversation will be about his wrongdoings, his trial, and not about how the Republicans drove us into this mess. And guess what? The government still will not open. The Constitution still requires a budget and with the President getting rid of the debt limit, the Republicans aren't somehow going to become cooperative. They will hunker down, claim themselves the victims, probably win public support, and then the President will concede and kill Obamacare. It is political suicide. Obama is a smart man which is why he has already said that the 14th Amendment 'option' is not an option.

Whoops. My previous posts were meant to be directed @9.

@35: Context. Have you looked at the polls? Right now the Republicans are viewed as the most responsible (74%). But that doesn't mean the Democrats are winning. They are viewed as very responsible (61%) and the President is viewed as somewhat responsible (53%). If the President takes a unilateral action, the Republicans will be able to spin this to their advantage.

Don't kid yourself on this. Republicans are losing right now. The Democrats are just losing less. And this difference could easily be reversed if the President acts stupidly.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201…

@30 - Explain Medicare Part D then. Explain all the spending of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was you fuckers that spent the national treasury and slashed taxes so we're all still in debt to pay for it all. YOU did this.

Joseph Stiglitz says it well:

There's a particular absurdity to the fight over the debt ceiling because Congress passes laws about taxes, Congress passes laws about expenditures, and what we borrow is simply the difference between what we've enacted in legislation about expenditures and taxes.

(source)

@33: If you think Obama's going to be impeached for preventing the country from going into default and sending the world economy into a tailspin, then 35 is quite correct. If the Congress won't service the US debt, then the President will have to. He won't like it, but he's got to do it. He won't have a choice.

I don't think Obama's at any risk of impeachment though. If Congress can't get its act together on the budget and the debt limit, then how the fuck do you expect them to manage an impeachment? Do you seriously expect the country to support Congress after the Legislative branch has so obviously and completely failed to discharge its own constitutional responsibilities? It would be political suicide for the House to impeach the President for keeping the country from defaulting, and the Senate's not going to support it even if they do.

@42: Impeachment is easy. Subsequent conviction is hard. They are separate processes. If Obama unilaterally raises the debt ceiling, Boehner will have all the votes he needs to impeach Obama.

Reminder for everyone who is poor on their civics knowledge: impeachment means to bring up on charges. This is done by a majority vote in the House. Conviction is done in the Senate which requires 2/3rds votes. Feel free to read the Constitution if you have any questions.

@42: Anyways, lets look at it from two perspectives, yours and mine. In my view, the Republicans would impeach Obama for political advantage. In your view, the Republicans have been running a slash and burn campaign. So why wouldn't they continue to do the same with an impeachment?

I think Obama has evaluated these risks in a similar manner. I think his judgement on this matter has been sound. The 14th Amendment 'option' is not an option.

Given the severe and growing dysfunction of Congress, it seems inevitable that executive power will increase to fill the void. I don't think Obama is the person to do it but the next president may not be so scrupulous.

Given a choice between presidential autocracy and a journey beyond Thunderdome, I'll take the autocracy.

Who rules Barter Town?

@43: time to bone up on those reading comprehension skills: "It would be political suicide for the House to impeach the President..."

Change of heart? Sounds like he'd vote in a heartbeat if he thought that poison could pass the Senate.

@7: Thank goodness the way you think it should be isn't the way it actually is. As usual.

@46: And yet you still think Obama has no risk of impeachment. Nice try at a recovery.

I'll repeat, even if you think I'm smoking crack. If Obama uses the 14th Amendment 'option' he will be impeached. Maybe it is all the crack smoking, but I can't see why you think this is inconceivable. I've laid out my reasons. If I've made some fundamental error, let me know and I'll admit it.

@ 42 and 43

Question for both of you: I've heard it said somewhere that while Obama could be impeached for breaching the debt limit without congressional approval, he could also be impeached for refusing to do so due to his responsibilities as President. Is there any merit to that argument?

Here's the article link talking about the situation I mentioned:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/…

@50: Politically, no. The Republican House isn't going to impeach Obama for upholding a law they consider Constitutional. And Democrats aren't going to aid in the impeachment of a Democratic President unless there is a real crime committed.

Fuck you Jaime Herrera Beutler. I wish you were still the rep for Olympia (well, not really) so I could vote against your ass. What a chicken shit announcement. Waiting until the capitulation is over then pretend you have taken a principled stand.

Republicans are spineless mean people.

@39-41: http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board…
http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board…
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/orig…
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/orig…
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/orig…
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/orig…
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/orig…
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/orig…
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/orig…