
The Office of Legal Counsel advised President Barack Obama on whether he could ignore Congress and raise the debt ceiling himself under the 14th Amendment. We just don't know what they told him.
TPM filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for any final memo that OLC issued on whether Obama -- as progressives had wanted -- could continue to pay government obligations if Congress had refused to raise the statutory debt limit.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dumped the last shovel-full of dirt on the idea that President Obama can ignore the national borrowing limit if Congress refuses to raise it.
At her weekly press conference on Capitol Hill, she gave reporters a glimpse into a Thursday meeting at the White House with Democratic and Republican leaders, which, she said, became dominated by the question of the Constitutionality of the debt ceiling.
"At our meeting they spent a whole lot of time talking about the 14th Amendment. I said, 'you know what? Why are we talking about something that's not going to happen.'"
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Republicans are pushing back against suggestions from Democrats that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and can be ignored by the White House.
The notion has generated increased interest among Democrats in recent weeks as debt ceiling talks have lost momentum and rests on language in the 14th Amendment stating that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law...shall not be questioned." President Obama didn't rule the idea out in his Twitter town hall yesterday, telling the audience that he wanted a deal before it became a relevant debate.
Nervous that Democrats might be saving the move as an emergency option, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Cornyn (R-TX) are putting forward a Senate resolution affirming Congress' right to determine the debt limit.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)During Wednesday's first Twitter town hall, President Barack Obama made his feelings about the debt ceiling situation pretty clear. Using charged language, he said it should not be "used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, or oil and gas companies." However, the president sidestepped a question about whether it was a good idea to invoke the 14th Amendment to pay government obligations if Congress refuses to raise that debt ceiling -- but he didn't rule it out.
As the Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling looms closer and closer, liberal academics -- and even some Democratic members of Congress -- have begun questioning whether the legislative branch actually has the power under the Constitution to force the federal government to default on its debts.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)President Obama openly acknowledged underestimating the length and magnitude of the worst recession since the Great Depression in a response to a question during his Twitter town hall.
Always a tough question to answer, Obama was asked what mistakes he made in handling the economic crisis and what he would have done differently looking back on his first months in office.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)On a conference call with reporters Friday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged that President Obama may not need Congressional authorization to avoid a default on the national debt. But he noted, too, that the Constitutional debate on this question isn't ripe enough yet for Obama to take an end run around Congress, even if Republicans refuse to increase the national borrowing limit.
I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question's been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn't go there just yet.
"It's certainly worth exploring," Schumer said. "I think it needs a little more exploration and study. It's probably not right to pursue at this point and you wouldn't want to go ahead and issue the debt and then have the courts reverse it."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the staunch opponent of illegal immigration who is set to become the chairman of a key subcommittee on immigration, is setting his sights on the right-wing cause of ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants -- which many experts say would be unconstitutional.
And, as King told the local paper Cityview, his plan is to pass a statute anyway, and if it gets overruled in the courts, to then step up the effort to a constitutional amendment:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Earlier this week, we looked at many of the various (and popular) long-existing laws that tea parters and their leaders think are actually unconstitutional. They run the gamut from Social Security to civil rights to abolition of the Department of Education and on and on.
But despite all the talk about "returning" to the Constitution, don't confuse tea partiers with Constitutional purists, who happen to read the document in a conservative way. True, about half of the changes they want to make to the social fabric result from a peculiar interpretation of the Constitution as it exists. The other half, though, would actually require Congress and the states to change it altogether.
Here's how tea party candidates and organizers would amend the Constitution.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Rick Scott, the former health care executive who won Tuesday's primary to become the Republican nominee for governor of Florida, could be inching his way to the center after running his right-wing insurgent campaign: He does not support amending the Constitution or otherwise working to get rid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
Scott, who made his support for Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration a strong point of his ads, was asked about birthright citizenship in an interview last night with John King on CNN.
"I don't believe we ought to be changing the law. I think we ought to leave the law exactly the way it is, the 14th Amendment," said Scott. When asked again by King for confirmation, Scott made it clear that he believes in birthright citizenship for all: "That is a right. If you're born in our country, you're a citizen of our country."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)It turns out that Tom Tancredo, a man not known for his moderation when it comes to immigration policy, actually opposes changing the Constitution in order to end birthright citizenship. In an interview with CNN, the former Republican congressman and current Colorado gubernatorial candidate said that the debate over the 14th Amendment is "almost a ruse." Instead of changing the Constitution to put a stop to so-called "anchor babies," Tancredo says he would instigate a good old-fashioned court battle.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Karl Rove thinks Republicans should just take a breath when it comes to all this talk about amending the Constitution to keep illegal immigrants from taking advantage of the 14th Amendment.
"I mean, is the problem of anchor babies the central problem we face in securing our border? I don't think so," Rove told Fox Radio's John Gibson yesterday. "Let's stay focused on the things that we've got a chance to force Democrats in September and October to vote for that would actually have a positive impact on the border."
Rove blames the chatter about changing the 14th Amendment on a few -- well, actually one -- Republican stuck in a bad position because he was seen by some in his party as an ally of the Obama administration.
"It's not 'they,' it's him," Rove said when Gibson asked why Republicans threatened to derail their focus on economic talk with the 14th Amendment. "I mean, Lindsay Graham brings this up, I think to give himself some credentials [with the conservative base]...And then it gets jumped on by some others."
That's not to say Rove doesn't approve of the idea of ending the practice of so-called "anchor babies" -- he just thinks we don't need to amend the Constitution to end the practice.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)A new CNN poll finds the public divided on whether the Constitution should be amended to end birthright citizenship. The survey of 1,009 adults reports that 49% favor changing the Constitution to prevent the children of non-citizens from gaining automatic citizenship when born in the United States, while 51% oppose such a change.
Recently, a number of Republicans -- including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner -- have opened the door to considering changes to the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed birthright citizenship since 1868. Several Republicans claim the amendment rewards illegal immigrants who have so-called "anchor babies," children born as citizens in the United States to non-citizen parents. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the push to repeal the 14th Amendment is evidence that Republicans have "either taken leave of their senses or their principles."
The poll has a margin of error of ±3.0 percentage points.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)There's not much that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (I) and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) agree on anymore. That wasn't always the case, of course -- they used to be members of the same party before Crist bailed on the GOP after Rubio was leading him in the Republican Senate primary. But it seems that the pair are back on the same side once again when it comes to the nascent GOP crusade to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: Both reject the idea outright.
As the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports, Crist and Rubio "have both now declared their opposition" to the plan, supported by many top Republicans, to alter the Constitutional right to citizenship for any baby born in the United States.
The two Democrats battling it out for their party's Senate nomination, Rep. Kendrick Meek and billionaire investor Jeff Greene, have also said they're opposed to any plan to change the constitution.
The unity in feeling here in Florida likely means that "whoever wins in November isn't likely to join with a growing group of Republicans trying to repeal the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in the name of immigration reform," the Herald-Tribune reports.
The TPM Poll Average shows Crist leading Rubio and Meek 37.8-33.2-14.7. When Greene is the Dem, the TPM Poll Average shows Crist leading 37.5-32.9-16.4.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Add House Minority Leader John Boehner to the list of Republicans who want to give the 14th Amendment, which allows any person born on U.S. soil U.S. citizenship, a second look. Boehner (R-OH) was direct when asked on NBC's Meet the Press about the growing calls from the GOP to hold hearings on the 14th Amendment, and said the nation's schools and hospitals are "being overrun" by illegal immigrants.
Boehner, who wants to be speaker of the House, said the "conversation" about what he believes is a "problem" should "continue."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)FANCY FARM, KY -- Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate General Jack Conway (D) dismissed the growing Republican call to rewrite the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in an interview with TPMDC today.
Conway's Republican opponent in the U.S. Senate race, Rand Paul, has long called for an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for anyone born in the United States. Paul and other Republicans -- including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky's senior senator -- have suggested that so-called "birthright citizenship" is a draw for illegal aliens and say it's time to end the practice.
I asked Conway, the state's attorney general, for his response to the calls in a brief interview conducted in a campaign RV following his speech at the Fancy Farm Picnic, the raucous political jamboree in this western Kentucky hamlet. Conway was unequivocal in his rejection of the idea, and he suggested McConnell and Paul are only raising it to rally their conservative base.
"I don't think we need to change the Constitution of the United States," Conway said. "I think they're just pandering on that issue."
I'll have more on my wild day at Fancy Farm in a future post.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Immigration reform advocates said they intend to aggressively challenge new calls for an examination of the birthright allowed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, with top officials saying the mainstream push is alarming.
"Many of these positions have been coming from the extreme side," Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza, said in response to a question from TPM. "Now we're starting to see obviously more mainstream voices with that push and it's extremely troubling to us."
Murguía was referring to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. John McCain and other top Republicans who say they are open to hearings looking at whether the Constitution should be changed to deny citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants who are on U.S. soil.
If Republicans seriously want to amend the Constitution to do away with birthright citizenship, they're right about one thing: the first place to start is with Congressional hearings. Today, in a statement to TPMDC, the senator who would chair those hearings says that's not gonna happen.
"We can and should address the problem of illegal immigration head-on without amending the Constitution," says Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). "The way to do that is to pass bipartisan comprehensive legislation improving border security, protecting American jobs and addressing those currently in the country illegally. It is past time for Congress to resume the bipartisan effort that was started by President Bush and enact meaningful federal immigration reform."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Here's something you don't hear very often: a prominent Republican's policy position is too conservative for Alan Keyes. Speaking at a Tea Party Express-sponsored event in Washington this morning, Keyes said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is being irresponsible by suggesting, as he did recently, that the 14th Amendment may have been a bad idea.
Graham told Fox News that he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would remove automatic birthright citizenship for all babies born in the United States, even if their parents are here illegally. Graham and other Republicans have been whipping up opposition to the 14th Amendment, which they say encourages illegal immigrants to come to America with the plan to have babies who will automatically become U.S. citizens.
Keyes suggested that he shared the concern over so-called "anchor babies" with Graham and his allies, but he said that "the 14th Amendment is not the problem." Rather, he seemed to suggest, it's a mistaken interpretation of the amendment that's at fault. Changing the wording of the amendment would be a mistake, Keyes said -- and talk like Graham's is downright dangerous.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Yet another high-ranking Republican is eyeing the notion of changing the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship for children who are born in the United States but whose parents are illegal immigrants. And this time it's a very senior name -- Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
Grassley's communications director Jill Kozeny told the Iowa Independent: "For the past few years, Sen. Grassley has told constituents he's concerned about the number of births in the United States by illegal immigrants wanting only to secure citizenship and benefits, and that he'd consider legislation to clarify the 14th amendment, especially if a comprehensive immigration bill is put forward. He'd agree that a hearing with legal experts and other parties of interest would help determine if changes are warranted."
Grassley joins the ranks of other top Republicans in calling for a review of this as an issue, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and possibly -- depending on some ambiguity -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Appearing on Fox News today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) fired back at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) criticism of Republicans like himself who favor changing the 14th Amendment in order to eliminate birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrant parents.
Graham was asked about Reid's statement that Republicans backing this idea -- including Graham, who has said he wants to introduce a new constitutional amendment -- have "either taken leave of their senses or their principles."
"Have I taken leave of my senses by looking at a law that rewards people who break our own laws, that incentivizes the next wave of illegal immigration?" said Graham. "Am I being unfair to say that we're gonna grant citizenship on our terms, not yours? Am I being unfair to say that we don't want laws in place that will require the third wave of illegal immigrants to be dealt with.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell sought today to characterize his push for hearings on birthright citizenship as an educational exercise aimed solely at a small subset of wealy parents who enter the United States for the express purpose of having a child -- a practice known as birth tourism.
In an interview with The Hill yesterday, McConnell said that a 14th Amendment provision granting citizenship to all infants born in the United States should be reviewed. "I haven't made a final decision about it, but that's something that we clearly need to look at," he said. "Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don't think anybody thinks that's something they're comfortable with." An aide to McConnell confirmed this with the Huffington Post. But today, McConnell denied that he was talking about all children born in the United States.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked today about growing calls from Republicans to hold hearings about the 14th Amendment and whether children born to illegal immigrants can rightfully be citizens.
Reid (D-NV) quoted extensively from a column written by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson on Friday. Reid read this portion from the podium of his press conference:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)The GOP push to change the Constitution to eliminate so-called birthright citizenship is already causing problems for some of its own members. Case in point: John McCain.
In the final moments of a morning press conference about the stimulus, cohosted by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), McCain asked for one final question from reporters...which happened to be about the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship. McCain abruptly ended the press conference.
"We're talking about the stimulus right now," McCain said, before darting off to the elevators down the hall from the Senate studio, where he again declined to take a question. Reporters eventually caught up with McCain in the basement of the Capitol, where he was walking toward to the man-operated train connecting the Senate with the Russell office building.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now adding his voice to those Republicans flirting with an attempted repeal of birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of parents who are illegal immigrants -- by far the highest-level endorsement yet from the party establishment. Although McConnell did not take a firm position on the issue, he nevertheless seemed to paint this as a widespread, consensus belief: "I don't think anybody thinks that's something they're comfortable with," he said of the status quo, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, in which anyone born in the U.S. automatically becomes a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
McConnell's office told Sam Stein on Monday that McConnell believes "we should hold hearings" on the subject, which has been much discussed on the right.
In a follow-up interview with The Hill, McConnell elaborated. "I think we ought to take a look at it -- hold hearings, listen to the experts on it," McConnell said. "I haven't made a final decision about it, but that's something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don't think anybody thinks that's something they're comfortable with."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Senate Starts Kagan Debate With Confirmation On Track
The Senate will begin debate today on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. A successful confirmation is expected later this week, as nearly all Democrats plus some Republicans have indicated that they will vote for her.
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will receive the presidential daily briefing at 9:30 a.m. ET, and the economic daily briefing at 10 a.m. ET. He will sign the Fair Sentencing Act at 11 a.m. ET. He will host a town hall with Young African Leaders at 2 p.m. ET. He will meet at 4:30 p.m. ET with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Across the country, an out-there theme has been re-emerging among conservatives seeking to crack down on illegal immigration: End "birthright citizenship," a right based in the 14th Amendment, which leads to automatic citizenship for children born in the United States -- at least, end it as it applies to American-born children whose parents are here illegally.
Birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment was intended, at least in part, to guarantee citizenship for freed slaves and otherwise secure legal equality: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Without the concept of birthright citizenship, it's possible for someone to be born without having citizenship in any country at all. Experts have told TPM that any plans to change that right are "clearly unconstitutional."
That's not stopping some right-wingers. Let's take a look at the list of conservatives who insist that birthright citizenship be done away with, either by constitutional amendment or (more often) by looking for a legislative loophole.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) starting to step away from his image as a relative GOP moderate? He's now calling for a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, an idea that has become a cause célèbre on the right.
"But there's another problem we have in this nation that I think is novel and needs to be fixed. If you come across the border illegally and you have a child in America, automatically, that child becomes an American citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, three court cases says there's a constitutional right to that," Graham said in an appearance Wednesday on Greta Van Susteren's show.
He also added: "But I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here. Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is challenging Sen. John McCain in the August 24 primary, has explained another reason to repeal birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States: That "birth tourism" is resulting in people around the world timing their pregnancies so that births coincide with visits to America.
During an appearance this morning on MSNBC, Hayworth said: "It's not exclusive to our neighbors to the south, from Mexico. Many families around the world in the jet age are timing the gestation period to come to the United States, to have the blessed event here, so that the new birthright citizen will have access to a phalanx of American benefits, courtesy of you and me and other American taxpayers."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
