Fourteenth Amendment

The first sentence in section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” (The italics are mine.) There’s no hint of equivocation here, particularly compared with the Second Amendment that begins with a “well regulated militia” as a reason, if not the reason for including “the right to keep and bear arms” in the Bill of Rights. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment assumes the wisdom of the law from the git-go and takes the trouble to make certain it goes as far as its writers intended. Most of us know that legalese and common English are not always compatible. But for legal scholars to say that there is no Constitutional basis for the president to invoke this law is going too far. Most of us were taught in high school civics that Congress makes the laws, the Supreme Court adjudicates them as circumstances require and the president enforces them as he sees necessary. I don’t think it’s stretching the point to assume that preserving the credit of the United States is a necessity.

But in my opinion all this is academic. Barack Obama has said he won’t invoke the Fourteenth Amendment and I’m confidant it’s because he knows he won’t have to. There’s a proper time to debate fiscal differences. But it’s not when the nation’s credit standing is being used as collateral and most Americans seem to know this. Apparently Republicans have recognized this by postponing the expected debt ceiling showdown for three months to come up with a solution to what is now their problem. They’re generally pretty good at these things. But it looks as though they’ve bit off more than they can chew. Perhaps a good conduct medal might mollify them.

November’s decisive election has to have emboldened our first president of color. He is now the only Democratic since FDR to win the office with successive majorities. There seems to be more spring in his step. Yes, “lame duck” presidents are less empowered than first termers. But I’d prefer the former giving it all he’s got to the latter doing the job tentatively. Barack Obama has more than his share to give and by now his opponents know this, even his most militant detractors. After all, it’s no small trick for a man born in Kenya to be twice elected president of the United States..