Should President Biden invoke the 14th Amendment

[Beachnutt]

and go ahead and pay the bills due and show America who is going to appeal it.

58 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	57 (98%)
	No
	1 (2%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bucolic_frolic]

1. I don't know the answer, but that is a new take, an appeal is to claim default is better

so it should give the GOP pause. Contrarily, it could under a GOP president and Congress translate to unlimited tax cuts for the wealthy because they will claim deficits don't matter.

[TheBlackAdder]

2. Not sure. While I say yes, lawsuits might fly and cause RW SCOTUS to deny it and affirm the RWers.

.

Not sure if that would then legitimize the QLoon extremists and provide cover for their actions.

I have faith Pres. Biden will do the right thing.

.

[Buns_of_Fire]

3. Enough. It's time to settle this.

Otherwise, like the sword of Damocles, it'll be rehung every blessed year as long as a MAGApublican still draws breath. Let's see them try to declare the Constitution as unconstitutional.

[Beachnutt]

4. If the shoe was on the other foot would they invoke 14th amendment ?

[Buns_of_Fire]

9. In a split-second, of course. Like any good two-year-old,

they're heavily into instant gratification, with no concern for any potential consequences. They'd say, "this is what we're going to do; now try to stop us."

[GoodRaisin]

13. The shoe is never on the other foot though.

Holding the country hostage is a GOP exclusive tactic.

[Turbineguy]

5. Republicans depend on Democrats to save them.

Maybe Democrats should not save them. Republicans get what they want. Millions will die. Country ruined. Economy collapse. Rich escape to Europe or Dubai on their yachts.

Then we can start over in a hundred years or so.

[onenote]

6. I'd greatly prefer it doesn't come to that.

Folks say, "just pay the bills." But with what? The whole point is that there isn't money to pay the bills. Money will have to be borrowed. And who is going to lend money to the US when the authority of executive branch to enter into such loans is unresolved, given that the Constitution expressly gives the authority to borrow to the executive branch.

Folks act like this is a slam dunk solution. It is anything but. So the better option is to find away out of this without invoking the 14th and hoping it doesn't have some of the same disruptive impact on the economy as a default.

[Tetrachloride]

7. It's only money.

[Beachnutt]

8. Let's borrow and pay the bills due and

negotiate a solution afterwards, no hostage situation on either side.

[onenote]

18. You kind of missed the point. Who are we going to borrow from and on what terms?

Who will want to lend money to the US when the legality of the loan itself is unresolved? Given the risk, what terms would lenders demand? What impact will it have on interest rates?

It's not as simple as some folks seem to imagine it is.

[LakeArenal]

10. Did you tell Republicans that when they created the debt?

This happens to every Dem Pes in recent years.

Time to do something different.

[onenote]

19. Pretty sure both parties "created the debt."

The $1.5 trillion Omnibus Appropriations bill of 2021-2022 was enacted last year by a vote of 260-171 in the House and 68-31 in the Senate. All Democrats and a minority of Republicans supported the spending bill.

I agree that we should do away with the debt ceiling limit, but that isn't going to happen any time soon. So the issue is what is the best way to deal with a bad situation.

Ignoring the ceiling, and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't seem like a very good solution since I'm not sure who is going to be willing to lend money to the US on anything approaching viable terms when the validity of such debt would be unresolved.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. Invoke the 14th right after the deadline

We can say we tried to negotiate and used this only as a way to avoid default, protect the economy, and make sure hardworking families get paid.

When republicans sue we can say they are suing because they wanted to take the government hostage and in order to tank the economy and blame Biden.

All of which is completely true.

The optics will look bad for the Republifascists especially if the SC sides with them and suddenly people aren’t getting paid BECAUSE THEY SUED TO MAKE SURE THEY WEREN’T PAID AND INTENTIONALLY TANKED THE ECONOMY!!!

[KentuckyWoman]

12. I believe he has to do whatever he has to do to

defend America from all threats, foreign and domestic. He should use any and all means at his disposal.

The GOP has spent at least 40 years proving itself to be the enemy of the American people.

[JohnSJ]

14. Do the discharge petition first, and if that fails, then the 14th amendment

[nevergiveup]

15. If there are unknown or unclear possible serious risks

in invoking the 14th Amendment then Biden is not going to do it. He is more likely to give the Republicans something that really pisses us off. It could easily become a grim situation. He can't let the world economy crash. What ever decision he makes I will support him.

[GoCubsGo]

16. I trust that he'll do whaever he needs to do to keep us from defaulting.

If it means using the 14th Amendment, then so be it. He's dealing with a group of people with a collective IQ of 47, so I'm thinking it won't have to come down to that. But, who knows with those America-hating assholes?

[standingtall]

17. I say yes

republicans do this every time they have the congress and a Democrat is President. This what effectively put a stop to this in the
future. these guys are proposing things that aren't even popular among republicans and have been shot down in courts. Like cutting Social Security and medicaid works requirements which have been ruled against in federal courts. Have any of these republicans that proposed medicaid work requirements offered to raise the medicaid asset limit which has been 2,000 in most States for about 30 years? Or offered to eliminate the asset test altogether? To make their terrible proposal more palatable? I bet not.

[Buckeyeblue]

20. The problem is the law has been on the books since 1917

That doesn't mean it's not unconstitutional. But SCOTUS has typically sided with congress/legislation. However, I couldn't find anything showing the debt ceiling law has ever been challenged, probably because it has always been extended on unanimous consent votes.

The argument is straightforward. The 14th amendment says the government must pay it's debts. The only way to do that is by issuing additional debt. And the country has always been in debt. Since there is no other means to pay our debt, the 1917 law requiring congressional approval to extend the debt ceiling is unconstitutional.

The argument against is that the 1917 law has established a tradition for the process that must be followed the increase the debt ceiling. To not have this in place would erode checks and balances established by the constitution. They would argue that a president could set a debt limit that is high enough that it wouldn't be reached for decades.

The counter to that is without an unconstitutional debt limit ceiling, there would be no ceiling assigned.

I'm not sure what other arguments there are.

[Polybius]

21. He said he won't

Biden’s 14th Amendment message to progressives: It ain’t gonna happen

I'm with Biden. I'm voting no.