Front Page
NMJ Search
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House

Twenty-one House Democrats have signed a draft letter urging Obama to invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit unilaterally if Republicans demand steep cuts to entitlement programs in return for expanding borrowing authority.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Democrats: Courts Should Resolve Debt-Limit Standoff
The Hill
Democrat lawmakers are urging President Obama to force Republicans to take him to court over the controversial issue of raising the debt ceiling. They believe the Supreme Court ultimately will have to resolve the battle over spending now raging between Republicans and the president.

But how the courts will rule is shrouded in uncertainty because little case law exists to serve as meaningful precedent, legal scholars say.

Democrats in Congress argue Obama should not feel constrained by the 1917 debt-limit law, which the federal government is projected to hit in late February, because it conflicts with other laws.

"The president, I think, has the authority under the Constitution and under the various statutes that are passed -- if nothing is done -- he must do something about paying the bills," said Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM). "That issue may well go to the courts in our system"...

Udall and other Democrats say Obama has the discretion to arbitrate among conflicting laws.

Udall believes the debt limit, which was created by the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, clashes with landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act of 1935, the Medicare Act of 1965 and various appropriations laws that direct the executive branch to spend federal funds on an array of priorities.

If Obama or Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were to suspend payment for various government programs, they would ignore Congress's previously expressed wishes, he argues.

Twenty-one House Democrats have signed a draft letter urging Obama to invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit unilaterally if Republicans demand steep cuts to entitlement programs in return for expanding borrowing authority.

The signatories have pledged to "support your use of any authority available to you, including the 14th Amendment, to preserve America's full faith and credit and prevent further damage to our economy"...

House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), who did not sign the letter, has also endorsed Obama's use of the 14th Amendment to resolve the debt-limit standoff.

Republicans disagree on several points.

They argue that the federal government would not be forced to default on its debts if Congress fails raise the debt limit. They say Obama could selectively cut government programs to keep spending in check and ensure creditors are paid.

Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) suggested in an op-ed published by the Houston Chronicle that a partial government shutdown might be necessary. "It may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well-being of our country, rather than plod along the path of Greece, Italy and Spain," he wrote...

Former President Bill Clinton was one of the first Democrats to publicly raise the possibility that Obama could get around the debt limit by invoking the 14th Amendment. But Obama immediately rejected the possibility.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School, predicted Obama would not attempt to circumvent Congress. "The president will not increase borrowing authority without congressional approval. There will be a partial government shutdown," he said...

Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell University Law School, said Obama could pursue several legal strategies if the issue winds up in court. He believes the president could argue that borrowing money in excess of the debt ceiling would be less of a usurpation of Congress's authority than unilaterally deciding which programs to cut, or taxes to raise, to keep within the limit.

"If Congress were to authorize spending that exceeds tax collection by $1 trillion in a year, at a time when the existing federal debt is only one-half trillion dollars below its statutory ceiling, then the president could not execute all three laws as written. Faced with that impossible choice, the president risks acting unconstitutionally no matter what he might do," Dorf and co-author Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote in a Columbia Law Review article.

Dorf said the 14th Amendment could also give the president a strong legal argument, even though it was originally written to prevent Southern lawmakers from repudiating war debts in the aftermath of the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment states, "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 the legal relevance of the amendment to today's debate is questioned by other scholars.


Editor's Note: Again, read here and read here...The Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, and even the Senate to a great extent, have no authority to decide or negotiate anything about raising revenue -- not the debt ceiling, the budget, the deficit, taxes...nothing. Raising revenue is the exclusive domain of the US House of Representatives per the US Constitution. Speaker Boehner, who has said he is finished with one-on-one talks with Pres. Obama (we'll see) would be wise to pass the bill he wants to pass and then vocally -- in a full-throated and spectacular way -- lay that bill at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's pathetic, obstructionist feet, to either take-up and amend, or concur and pass. But, then, the day he national GOP -- and the GOP in total, actually, learnes to use the media in a productive way is the day the moon splits in two and the day that Progressives realize the Constitution is a document of governmental limitations...

The informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by is copyrighted. supports and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Media © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server