I think this is hawk's attempt to be clever.
Of course he is too clever even for himself. The current fight is over the CR, not the debt limit. That won't occur until Mid Oct.
That bullshit Hawkeye. There is a legislative process that Congress could use to overturn Obamacare. This is the way the government works. Congress votes on legislation and if they have the votes then they can change the law.
The don't have the votes. It is tough luck for the Republicans, but sorry. That is the way democracy works.
This attempt at blackmail... to threaten to damage the country economically if they don't get what the want (given that they don't have the votes to use the normal legislative process), is ridiculous.
Obama is doing the job of a president as it is outlined in the Constitution. If congress passes legislation, then he can act on it.
It is the responsibility of Congress to raise the debt ceiling because everyone of us knows that not doing so would harm the country. It is not the responsibility of the President to give into demands of people who would hold the economy hostage because they don't like legislation that they don't have the votes to overturn in the proper way.
There is a simple reason that President Obama is willing to negotiate with the Iranian government but not with the Tea Party controlled House.
The Iranian government isn't threatening to blow up the World economy if we don't meet their demands.
Who dosent understand simple english now?
you have evaded the question, if congress does not reach agreement and pass an authorization will Obama ignore the limit? he has shown over and over again a willingness to act like Putin, to operate as if he is king, so why would he not ignore the limit and then champion himself again, maybe go on a five city victory tour?
btw: if you are truely confused by terms then you are really stupid. I suspect that was theater.
the other choice us to ignore the debt limit law and dare the courts to do something about it.
Validity of public debt
Section 4 (of the 14th amendment) confirmed the legitimacy of all U.S. public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, during the Civil War several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the Union. In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States bond "went beyond the congressional power."
The debt-ceiling crisis in 2011 raised the question of what powers Section 4 gives to the President, an issue that remains unsettled. Some, such as legal scholar Garrett Epps, fiscal expert Bruce Bartlett and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have argued that a debt ceiling may be unconstitutional and therefore void as long as it interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (that is, Social Security recipients). Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing