Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Obama executive order to raise the debt ceiling

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 23:11, 30 July 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Background and context)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 23:21, 30 July 2011 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Write Subquestion here...)
Next diff →
Line 41: Line 41:
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Con" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Con" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
-===Write Subquestion here...===+===Legal standing: ===
|- |-
Line 47: Line 47:
====Pro==== ====Pro====
-''Click "edit" and write arguments here'' 
- 
- 
- 
 +*'''Unilateral action would cause no damage; no legal standing.''' Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles: "To have standing to challenge a governmental action, you must show that you have suffered some injury from that action, and it's hard for someone to show such an injury."[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html]
 +*'''Congress wouldn't act jointly to oppose Obama raising debt ceiling.''' Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles: "If Congress acted as a unified body, and claims that the president has usurped their authority, then it may have some standing. But it would have to be a joint resolution. And this Senate would almost certainly block it."[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html]

Revision as of 23:21, 30 July 2011

Background and context

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment?


Arguments

Pro

  • Congress shouldn't have vote on paying appropriated expenditures. Former President Bill Clinton told The National Memo in late July: “I think the Constitution is clear, and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”[1]
  • Former President Clinton would have ordered raising debt ceiling. Former President Bill Clinton said to the National Memo that he would, if in Obama's position, use the 14th “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”[2]
  • Better for Pres to raise ceiling than keep compromising. Liberal commentators like Robert Kuttner, the co-editor of The American Prospect: “Obama’s version of leadership is to implore the Republicans to accept a deal that is already on GOP terms. Now, you may say that the president has no responsible alternative. Since the GOP won’t compromise, Obama must keep compromising, so the United States doesn’t default. ... But you would be wrong. It would be far better for Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment and announce that Washington will make good on its debt while Republicans and Democrats continue to negotiate the budget.”[3]


Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Legal standing:

Pro

  • Unilateral action would cause no damage; no legal standing. Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles: "To have standing to challenge a governmental action, you must show that you have suffered some injury from that action, and it's hard for someone to show such an injury."[4]
  • Congress wouldn't act jointly to oppose Obama raising debt ceiling. Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles: "If Congress acted as a unified body, and claims that the president has usurped their authority, then it may have some standing. But it would have to be a joint resolution. And this Senate would almost certainly block it."[5]


Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Pro/con sources

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.