Skip to main content

View Diary: Platinum coin might be legally required in absence of debt limit increase (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Huh? If he can't use it - what it represents - to (0+ / 0-)

    ... pay the debts of the United States that Congress authorized and then appropriated money for, what good would it do?

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:56:16 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The operative words are: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trevzb

      "that Congress authorized."

      That's all he can do with that money.  And it's no more executive power than you and I already believe (but President Obama does not believe) he has under Sec. 4 of the 14th Amendment.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:01:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you're saying Congress has approved, so he... (0+ / 0-)

        ... can pay. If that's so, why does he need the charade of the Giant Coin? Just pay the damn bills.

        To say the President has to do something (issue debt) that Congress will criticize in order to do something Congress required (spending), so he must mint a valuable coin (which Congress OKayed in an entirely different context), is to say the President has to go along with a charade.

        I'm saying the President is too principled a man to do that. Call a gimmick for what it is, and move on like an adult.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:09:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because congress also imposed (0+ / 0-)

          this idiotic borrowing limit.  If the president borrows over that limit, he's breaking the law.  The coin offers a legal (if rather silly) alternative.

          The Constitution requires that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  Given two alternative solutions to a crisis - one legal and the other illegal - he must choose the legal alternative.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:38:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The President need not enforce an unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

            ... law.  DOMA, for example. Congress frets and struts and will threaten impeachment, perhaps even carry on with it. But I expect the House GOP zealots and the leadership will do that no matter what work around the Obama administration takes - the Magic Coin, issuing scrip, ignoring Congress, whatever.  

            True, a president doesn't usually refuse to defend or abide by an Act of Congress, but he can. This isn't a "constitutional crises," it's a confrontation. Both branches seem to be spoiling for it and it will be a terrible and dangerous distraction.

            History, short them and long, will laud the adult in the room.

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:55:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site