Watchdog demands to know why Obama renounced debt-limit power

[jakeXT]

One of Washington's most prominent watchdog groups is seeking the legal reasons behind President Obama's long-standing refusal to hike the debt ceiling unilaterally.

As the recent fiscal battle unfolded, the White House said repeatedly that Obama does not have the authority to extend the Treasury's borrowing powers without congressional action.

But Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is challenging that claim, noting that the Obama administration has, in the words of CREW chief counsel Anne Weismann, adopted "an expansive view of executive power" in everything from the surveillance of U.S. citizens at home and the killing of Americans overseas.

Given that track record, CREW is wondering why Obama feels he can’t hike the debt ceiling on his own to prevent an economic collapse.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/329407-watchdog-demands-to-know-why-obama-renounced-debt-limit-power

[Enrique]

1. interesting

that's something the media could have looked into as well, or at least asked him about, but as far as I know they haven't.

[Squinch]

2. So, for those who know about this, if he did unilaterally raise it, I have heard that he would

definitely be impeached, but probably not convicted. First, is that true? And second, if he were impeached, would that then close off that option for future presidents?

If it did close off that option, that would be a real corner to be forced into, and he's smart not to do it.

But if breaking that emergency glass was likely to create acceptance for the routine use of that option, it would be a smart thing to do.

Which is more likely? Or is the answer that we don't know so it isn't a realistic option?

[Justice]

3. Easy answer

Obama could do it but what matters is perception. What matters is whether a bond buyer would believe it. Who takes the risk of not getting paid?

Wish Obama would file declaratory judgment action asking court to decide whether president has that power.

[grantcart]

9. You nailed a rather obvious point

The President has peripheral vision while the writer can't take their eyes off of a sheet of paper.

[libdem4life]

4. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Unique view. My sense is he got agreement from the

agencies for the NSA and Defense Department issues...those actions were approved, if not designed by said agencies. Likely explains why the Left is rightfully upset about them.

On the debt ceiling, he is right...legal issues would have tied up the rest of his administration via the RWNJs.

Looked up CREW online and they seem to be a liberal-leaning group.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/melanie-sloan

[BluegrassStateBlues]

5. Absolutely ridiculous. nt

[leftyohiolib]

6. here's why, melanie

As the recent fiscal battle unfolded, the White House said repeatedly that Obama does not have the authority to extend the Treasury's borrowing powers without congressional action

[Igel]

7. Yes, but then there's to OP argument.

He's overreached and expanded his own powers at the expense of Congress and others in so many other ways, that to be consistent he should also have assumed the power to control the debt ceiling. We may disagree on details, but between prosecutorial discretion's gutting of laws, postponing dates that he signed into law, NSA, drones, the authority to launch an attack that might force Congress to declare a war, and many other things assumed by him or granted to him in the interest of expediency by members of his own party, well, surely we can agree on something(s). Unless you subscribe to a "person as ideology" viewpoint, where the leader is perfect and, well, our job is to simply blindly follow.

That's the argument. It's basically saying, "Since he's slighted the Constitution in other ways and decided to ignore certain other traditional interpretations and legal opinions, he should continue to erode the Constitution's authority in the interest of immediate goals because those are *my* immediate goals." Utilitarianism makes a bad groundwork for politics. I suspect that this is just a utilitarianistic veneer, however. When push comes to shove, few with more than three brain cells talking to each other are actually utilitarian. (Not to be confused with Unitarian.)

Not the kind of argument I'd feel comfortable making in a republican form of representative, Constitutionally-limited democracy. Then again, some want us to finally transition to Democracy (tm) 1.0, considering the last couple hundred years to be beta testing after the abysmal failure of Democracy--Articles of Confederation. You can't have something so open-source that it doesn't really hang together and work. Even Democracy 0.1 through 0.3b was found to be too decentralized, showing that ultimately "we the people" (server side) can't truly trust "we-the-people" (client side), and the upgrade to 0.5 in the 1930s and 0.6 in the '60s were received with mixed welcomes. The beta release in the '80s, 0.7, was widely panned. Ultimately, democracy must be centralized under one strong leader who wields great power. I guess they'd want us to change the name of the top-dog position (with the rest of us as bottoms) from "President" to "Demos". Then we'd refer to the leader as the Demos. (Feminine form, deme, and supporters we could call "demeters".)

So Democracy 1.0 it is.

[leftyohiolib]

8. well the debt ceiling seems have a more obvious tie to congress and less himself than those

examples you mention due to it being a power of the purse issue, it's more clearly a congressional responsibility since it has to due with spending. those other issues ie:gutting of laws, postponing dates that he signed into law, NSA, drones, the authority to launch an attack that might force Congress to declare a war, they are less obvious due to those being issues of war. i know only congress can declare war but presidents have the power to take military action making the congress/potus powers demarcation less clear.

not a big fan of Democracy .7