Theoretical question: If Obama *DID* invoke the 14th, would YOU defend him against impeachment?

[scheming daemons]

Judging from the majority of posters on DU, I'm thinking the President would left out to dry.


Many of the people calling for the 14th amendment to be invoked are some of Obama's biggest critics here.



Wanna bet the Jane Hamshers of the world would side with the Grover Norquists (again!) in calling for impeachment over this unprecedented consolidation of executive power?

[peacebird]

1. I would support him.

[DonCoquixote]

12. Hell Yes

yesyesyes

[Snoutport]

49. +1

[peace frog]

83. Absolutely.

[William769]

2. This is something I would vigorously support him on.

[MadHound]

3. Yes, I would,

Much like I supported Clinton during his impeachment.

But the fact of the matter is that if he pulls the 14th Amendment trigger, it will go to the Supreme Court, who will most likely favor it, and it will be the SC who is on the business end of the RW flames.

[Autumn]

4. Yes I would defend him. Strongly n/t

[bluerum]

15. Certainly. For my part.

[Autumn]

23. If he walks up and shoots Boner in the face while hunting

I will not only defend him I will build a shrine to him.

[bluerum]

39. A golf ball to boners nogin would be simply a joy. a shotgun blast may be messy but ....

[Autumn]

41. Yeah but I would so like to see Boner apologize to Obama

for him shooting him in the face. There is precedence you know.

[John Agar]

5. Yes.

I have no idea what this has to do with Jane Hamsher though.

[scheming daemons]

8. FDL would call it yet another example of abuse of executive power

[John Agar]

82. It would take courage and conviction to invoke the 14th.

Our so-called "Democratic" leaders have shown no traces of either quality.

So it's academic, in the end, isn't it?

[erodriguez]

6. I am. critic of Obama. But I would support him on this.

[aquart]

7. I am in favor of invoking the 14th.

You seem to be in favor of maligning Jane Hamsher with your overwrought fantasies.

Which I find disgusting, obsessive, and pitifully petty.

[Enrique]

9. everybody would, of course

including Jane Hamsher of course.

[ljm2002]

10. Yes, strongly. n/t

[dgibby]

11. I'm a critic,

but I'd be first in line to defend him.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. On the law, such as it is...

...I wouldn't be able to.

"Salus populi, suprema lex" is the crack in the door through which the man on horseback enters.

Which is precisely why Obama won't do it. He's a constitutionalist -- he'd vote against himself on the issue.

[onenote]

16. Of course fear of impeachment isn't why the 14th won't be invoked

Its because it won't be effective. There would be so much uncertainty surrounding the legality of unilateral action by the President that its likely that the markets will react the same way they would to default -- the nation's credit rating would be downgraded and all kinds of shit would hit the fan. Its not a solution not because it might eventually be found to be lawful, but because in the short run the uncertainty will have much the same devastating impact as default itself.

[hlthe2b]

17. absolutely and I believe the populace would not stand for

impeachment under that scenario.

[Parker CA]

18. 100%

[mmonk]

19. Absolutely.

And no, the Jane Hamshers of the world would not side with Grover Norquist again because invoking the 14th amendment would be going against striking deals with Grover Norquist's followers and pledges which Obama normally does.

[gateley]

20. Yes, I'd back him 100%. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

21. Damn skippy, I would defend him for making the right decision...

through the supreme court cases...
through impeachment...if that should happen.

It would be the right thing to do,
though it has consequences.

I do think that invoking the 14th is a bad idea in the big picture because, if successful, it moves more power to the executive branch. But if the choice is to cut Medicare and Social Security while protecting welfare for the rich, then we will have to deal with the Consequences of invoking the 14th. We should also accept the idea that invoking the 14th may not work; that the Teapublicans may go to SCOTUS and SCOTUS tells the President he can't do that, which puts us into default.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

24. Yes. Absolutely. nt

[still_one]

25. The critics here are NOT criticizing him if he exercised the 14th, they are criticizing him because

he put certain programs such as SS and Medicare on the table

So the answer is NO they would support him, but he isn't going to do it

[Poll_Blind]

32. +1

Exactly.

PB

[steve2470]

46. +2 nt

[dana_b]

50. yep!

well stated.

[Cool Logic]

26. In my view, the same people who support Obama's unilateral decision

to declare war on Libya, would support his illegal decision "to borrow money on the credit of the United States."

The legal process of declaring war has been disregarded and we see what that has given us: Thousands of lives wasted, trillions of $$$ borrowed and squandered.

Regrettably, many people favor more of what caused our problems in the first place.

[helderheid]

27. Hell yes!

[Warpy]

28. Hell, yes

It's an emergency situation because Congress failed to do its job, meaning raising a debt limit the way it's been done in the past, without debate, with few riders, and with no stupid psychodrama.

Unfortunately, it sounds like they made a deal so we might as well just bend over.

[kestrel91316]

29. Absolutely. I support ANYTHING he does that the Repigs hate.

It's only when he gives in and satisfies them that I get angry.

[Kennah]

30. The Left supported Clinton during Impeachment ...

... but the Right's antics during Impeachment still probably caused some collateral damage to Gore in 2000.

This is different, but I suspect there are some who might still vote in November 2012 thinking, "But Obama got impeached. I can't support him."

The Monica Lewinsky debacle should have turned the Scarlet Letter of Impeachment into a non-issue. However, I don't believe it has.

On the original queston, hell yes I'd support him if he invoked the 14A, whether it worked or not.

[sethgrogen]

31. what if it were romney?

Would it be okay then?

[steve2470]

42. if we are consistent, we'd have to say yes

We're assuming, of course, that Romney would wait till the very last second (as Obama would) to invoke it.

Invoking it "ahead of time" would more likely to be judged an unconstitutional power grab.

[DesertFlower]

33. yes. nt

[ZombieHorde]

34. I would defend President Obama, on DU, against impeachment over the 14th amendment option.

Wanna bet the Jane Hamshers of the world would side with the Grover Norquists (again!) in calling for impeachment over this unprecedented consolidation of executive power?

A likely conclusion. I completely understand why you made this OP.

eta: I recommended this to zero, which really makes me wonder if you caught on to something.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Very interesting question

!

[w4rma]

36. Unrecommend for stupid question. He would have his support. (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

37. Yup, I don't see much choice but to do whatever can be done to protect the nation and it's people.

I think I'd support any President in not allowing a default due to being taken hostage on a clean bill to raise the ceiling.

[Forkboy]

38. Yes.

[steve2470]

40. I would support him and send money to the DNC as well nt

[treestar]

43. No, the goalposts will be moved by then

If the President does that, the left will decry it as an abuse of power.

[Autumn]

44. I would think it would be the right

who would decry it as an abuse of power.

[steve2470]

45. +1 nt

[treestar]

68. No, the left will do it too

Right now they are demanding it, so long as not done, POTUS does not have the balls to do it.

He does it and boom it is an abuse of power!

[Forkboy]

47. You must have read a different thread.

[Autumn]

48. Some people just don't like people on

the left. :crazy:

[treestar]

69. Some people are familiar with people on the left

I wish Obama would invoke the 14th - you know you will, by then, be calling it an abuse of power.

[Autumn]

70. Quite the assumption there

what strong powers of discernment you have there.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Personally I would never support the impeachment of a Democratic President. Like him or not I hate republicans and have no desire to give them any satisfaction.

As a proud member of The Left, I welcome the hatred of anyone on the right. I relish it like a good whiskey and treasure it like a first born child.

[KittysRfuzzy]

51. Of course

With every ounce of energy I could muster.

[Raine]

52. I'm critical of him but if he did something like that I would support him

100% on it! :thumbsup:

[Jchiang123]

53. He'll no

No

[fivepennies]

54. From the frying pan .

where the Debt crisis is sizzling, and into the fire where using the 14th amendment to avert THIS crisis will set another worse constitutional crisis in motion. There is no doubt that the right wing has their stable of "constitutional scholars and lawyers" sharpening their pens as we speak and they would use the ambiguity of the 14th, which gives the president no authority to BORROW the money to pay the debts, to call for rewriting the whole Constitution to suit their feudal goals. If the debt ceiling was manufactured, as I and many others believe, should we think cutting a few things out of the budget was the end game and then they'd quit tearing everything down?

Win the battle, lose the war.

jmo

[Odin2005]

55. Yes. Absolutely.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

56. Heck yes. I'd even send my gas money for his defense.

[Pigheaded]

57. No NT

[alc]

58. depends on what he does

I have NO idea what "invoking the 14th amendment" means. If he does it like repubs "invoke god" to save us from the crisis then sure I'll support him from impeachment because he didn't do anything unconstitutional.


If he says the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, then it gets challenged, then he uses the 14th as an argument to the supreme court, and raises the debt ceiling only if he wins in court, I'll support him all the way. In that case he's following the proper constitutional process.

The 14th says nothing about the debt ceiling or borrowing beyond it. if he tells Geithner to borrow on the authority of the 14th and it get challenged and he does it anyway before the court hears the challenge then I won't support him. We have laws and processes and I won't support any president who violates them.

I think there are cases where a president SHOULD violate the law but he/she needs to do it knowing it's the last thing they do as president. They need to sacrifice their presidency for the good of the country rather that setting a precedence that violating the constitution is acceptable with no consequences.

[bigwillq]

59. Yes

I would be supportive of Obama's decision to use the 14th.

[CakeGrrl]

60. Valid question.

So many people have invested themselves in proclaiming that President Obama isn't a real Democrat that it bears asking.

[fishwax]

61. Sure.

As would, I imagine, the vast majority of DUers.

[Waiting For Everyman]

62. Invoked on a "clean" ceiling raise without TP conditions? Hell, yes.

[Igel]

63. When I was a kid...

my next door neighbor's kid got into some trouble. He was into drugs, something most of us kids knew.

There was a spate of burglaries.

Then, one late night, I hear some guys arguing and shouting. I look out my window, wishing they'd shut up but curious who they are. There's the neighbor's son and a couple of guys. Strange car in front of their house. I try to go to sleep. Then I heard a loud bang. I look out and see one guy jumping in the car and racing off down the street. The neighbor's kid runs into the house. The guy was shot and is lying in the yard. The ambulance came. The police came. The arrested the neighbor's son.

Turns out that in the son's bedroom they find drugs, stolen goods from most of the burglaries, and the gun that was used in the shooting. The mother was given some of the stolen jewelry.

For the next 10 years she said her son was innocent, he would never commit a burglary, he didn't own a gun, he was framed by the police, her son didn't know the guys.

I know a lot of mothers like that. Their kids can be rotten to the core and they defend their kids, trying to make criminality into virtue and always blaming somebody else. Usually they'd been doing just that for a long time, helping to train their kids into believing that the law didn't apply to them, sheltering them, and being what amounts to an accomplice in the kids' actions.

That way lies the kind of lawlessness--by most Western standards--that you see in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. The family, the clan, matters more than a code of ethics and morality and other people. I see that kind of behavior among the parents of many of the kids in my classroom and the kids learn it. Then they can beat up others and as long as they can lie their way out, it's okay. Steal, vandalize, abuse, cheat. If they can avoid the punishment, there is no moral code to violate.

I think "invoking" the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, and the rightness or wrongless of having a president violate his oath and violate the constitution in a blatant manner isn't a partisan matter. To defend such a president encourages more lawless behavior, and that way leads to the same kind of politics that we see in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, where the government is a tool for partisan profit and gain, not for governing on behalf of the citizenry.

[tokenlib]

64. A lot of us Obama critics are misunderstood....

We want to believe in Obama--we used to believe in Obama--- BUT somewhere along the way this idea that "progressives and liberals have no where else to go" has made us very uncomforatable. We remember the Obama who campaigned on raising the FICA cap--and are dismayed by the Obama who put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table. We are dismayed by the Obama who speaks of entitlement reform--and promps our ears to hear entitlement slashing.. I could go on and on...

We still want to believe in Obama. If he stood firm on principle and said no to the tea party social darwinist class warfare --we would support a 14th Amendment move.

[Change Happens]

65. Yes yes yes...

[Tx4obama]

66. There will be NO impeachment.

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1624147

[rampart]

67. no.. biden would be a shoo in for reelection

not sso obama.

[philly_bob]

71. I would support him, but your OP is hostile. (nt)

[krabigirl]

72. for this? Yes. for starting a ton of new wars? no.

[Yo_Mama]

73. I wouldn't, because I firmly believe it is unconstitutional

However, only the full circumstances would go toward establishing whether such a move, in fact, amounted to "high crimes and misdemeanors".

If you believe the 14th amendment nonsense, of course you will have a different opinion.

[B Calm]

74. Yes. It would please me to see him grow a set. FDR would be proud!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. I support or oppose issues not politiians or parties. In this case I support invoking the 14th.

I would oppose impeachment on the grounds of invoking the 14th Amendment.

[boston bean]

76. yes. nt

[leeroysphitz]

77. Obama won't invoke SHIT. He will not compromise on his position of compromise. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Would you support him if he were impeached for not invoking it?

I'm assuming you would support him if he were impeached for invoking it.

[GoCubsGo]

79. Yes, absolutely.

It's just a handful who want the President hung out to dry. A very vocal minority. The vast majority of us want to see him succeed, regardless of how disappointed we may or may not be in him.

[karynnj]

80. I think if there is no deal tomorrow, the majority of the country would back Obama doing so

Polls show that an overwhelming majority do not want a default - and they are very strong on that.

Imagine that that evening, Obama goes on tv and speaks of how no previous Congress EVER did not lift the debt ceiling - and NO party ever demanded a ransom for lifting it. He then should speak of how he agreed that a balanced long term solution was needed (this he has done an excellent job speaking of in some past talks),then he could speak of ALL the meetings he and Democrats had with the Republicans - and the fact, that the Democrats had been SO FAR towards the Republicans that they agreed to gigantic spending cuts with no revenue cuts. This was the original Republican position.

He can then say that the Democrats CAN NOT in good conscience give more. (optional - he should explain why the balanced budget - that the founders did NOT include - is a terrible idea - as were other parts of the ransom bill. )

Then he could say that we are in uncharted waters. Never before has a US President faced the possibility that the US would default under his watch. We don't know exactly what will happen, but we know that it would be bad. He could then say that he was invoking the 14 amendment to insure that the US paid its debts and remained in good standing. That he had no other choice other than sitting there and letting a default happen.

What downside could happen?
1) The Republicans could rush to impeach him. Like with Clinton, it is possible that they would have the votes in the House. It is also possible that even in the House, it would lose. I imagine that nearly ALL the people saying, "Don't default" would be on Obama's side if he did this. It is bold and it really is in the interest of the country. I would bet that this could be a really tough vote for anyone in the House from a not solid red tea party area. In the Senate, at the time of the Clinton trial, Kerry summed up that it was up to each individual Senator to determine what high crimes and misdemeanors means. This would be FAR easier for most Democrats than their Clinton speeches, where all listed what they did not approve of in what Clinton did (not sex, more spoke of the lying under oath, obstruction of justice, coaching witnesses etc) and then mitigating things, then the conclusion that it was not high crimes and misdemeanors.

I would hope that in doing this - every Democrat would argue that what Obama did was not a crime and not a misdemeanor and beyond that what he did was patriotic and good for the country. The Congress, after all authorized all that spending, so TO NOT SPEND ON PROGRAMS would also be disregarding Congress.

2) The Supreme Court could call it unconstitutional. I assume that would take time as it would not be taken immediately to the Supreme Court. The experts seem split on this, but the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional would be throwing the US into default. I would bet that the issue would have to be crystal clear for them to do that - especially if the majority of the country is for it.

I think it far better than giving one more iota to the Republicans. (I seriously think someone should ask Obama if he remembers reading "If you give a mouse a cookie" to his girls - it presages what will happen - the Republicans are going to extract ransom for every needed to pass vote. They won a slight majority in ONE House which Limbaugh calls it the biggest landslide in decades, when in fact, the Democrats had a bigger landslide 2 years before - with a BIGGER majority in the House, 58 votes (later to be 60) votes in the Senate and the Presidency. At the time the right said that that did not give Obama a mandate!

I think we have to say "enough" to the extremists who are blackmailing the Republicans into these actions.

(It actually seems a bigger stretch to use the 14th for Roe vs Wade or to use the first amendment for Citizens United.)

[karynnj]

81. I think if there is no deal tomorrow, the majority of the country would back Obama doing so

Polls show that an overwhelming majority do not want a default - and they are very strong on that.

Imagine that that evening, Obama goes on tv and speaks of how no previous Congress EVER did not lift the debt ceiling - and NO party ever demanded a ransom for lifting it. He then should speak of how he agreed that a balanced long term solution was needed (this he has done an excellent job speaking of in some past talks),then he could speak of ALL the meetings he and Democrats had with the Republicans - and the fact, that the Democrats had been SO FAR towards the Republicans that they agreed to gigantic spending cuts with no revenue cuts. This was the original Republican position.

He can then say that the Democrats CAN NOT in good conscience give more. (optional - he should explain why the balanced budget - that the founders did NOT include - is a terrible idea - as were other parts of the ransom bill. )

Then he could say that we are in uncharted waters. Never before has a US President faced the possibility that the US would default under his watch. We don't know exactly what will happen, but we know that it would be bad. He could then say that he was invoking the 14 amendment to insure that the US paid its debts and remained in good standing. That he had no other choice other than sitting there and letting a default happen.

What downside could happen?
1) The Republicans could rush to impeach him. Like with Clinton, it is possible that they would have the votes in the House. It is also possible that even in the House, it would lose. I imagine that nearly ALL the people saying, "Don't default" would be on Obama's side if he did this. It is bold and it really is in the interest of the country. I would bet that this could be a really tough vote for anyone in the House from a not solid red tea party area. In the Senate, at the time of the Clinton trial, Kerry summed up that it was up to each individual Senator to determine what high crimes and misdemeanors means. This would be FAR easier for most Democrats than their Clinton speeches, where all listed what they did not approve of in what Clinton did (not sex, more spoke of the lying under oath, obstruction of justice, coaching witnesses etc) and then mitigating things, then the conclusion that it was not high crimes and misdemeanors.

I would hope that in doing this - every Democrat would argue that what Obama did was not a crime and not a misdemeanor and beyond that what he did was patriotic and good for the country. The Congress, after all authorized all that spending, so TO NOT SPEND ON PROGRAMS would also be disregarding Congress.

2) The Supreme Court could call it unconstitutional. I assume that would take time as it would not be taken immediately to the Supreme Court. The experts seem split on this, but the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional would be throwing the US into default. I would bet that the issue would have to be crystal clear for them to do that - especially if the majority of the country is for it.

I think it far better than giving one more iota to the Republicans. (I seriously think someone should ask Obama if he remembers reading "If you give a mouse a cookie" to his girls - it presages what will happen - the Republicans are going to extract ransom for every needed to pass vote. They won a slight majority in ONE House which Limbaugh calls it the biggest landslide in decades, when in fact, the Democrats had a bigger landslide 2 years before - with a BIGGER majority in the House, 58 votes (later to be 60) votes in the Senate and the Presidency. At the time the right said that that did not give Obama a mandate!

I think we have to say "enough" to the extremists who are blackmailing the Republicans into these actions.

(It actually seems a bigger stretch to use the 14th for Roe vs Wade or to use the first amendment for Citizens United.)