In the wake of the recent oral arguments concerning the historic case of former President Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, the Supreme Court now faces another significant decision. Scheduled for consideration this week is the case of a New Mexico county commissioner involved in the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021.

Couy Griffin’s Appeal: A Parallel to Trump’s Legal Battle

Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump, found himself ousted from office by a state judge after being found guilty of breaching a restricted area during the Capitol riot. In a parallel legal move to Trump’s case, Griffin is fervently urging the Supreme Court to hear his appeal, which coincides with the court’s deliberations on Trump’s eligibility.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause: Historical Relevance Resurfaces

Originally crafted to prevent ex-Confederates from reclaiming power post-Civil War, the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause has gained newfound attention in the aftermath of the Capitol attack. While Trump’s case has drawn significant attention, Griffin’s situation underscores the broader application of this provision to public officials involved in rebellious acts.

Legal Challenges and Their Outcomes

Efforts to disqualify public officials under the 14th Amendment have faced mixed results—challenges against figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs saw varying outcomes, with some cases dismissed and others still pending. Trump, meanwhile, has encountered numerous lawsuits, with only Colorado and Maine moving to exclude him from their Republican primary ballots, pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Griffin’s Disqualification: Legal Proceedings and Pending Supreme Court Decision

Griffin’s disqualification occurred swiftly following a challenge from New Mexico voters, preceding his guilty verdict in the criminal case related to January 6. His appeal to the Supreme Court contends that his actions didn’t constitute insurrection, but rather a riot or civil disturbance, challenging the grounds for his disqualification.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Supreme Court’s Conundrum: Balancing Trump and Griffin Cases

As the Supreme Court grapples with Trump’s case, Griffin’s appeal presents an additional layer of complexity. Justices must navigate whether to address Griffin’s disqualification alongside Trump’s, particularly regarding the authority of states to enforce the 14th Amendment against state-level officials.

Jurisdictional Debate and Call for Action

Beyond the substantive legal issues, a debate over the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in Griffin’s case has emerged. Plaintiffs argue against the court’s power to review the disqualification, emphasizing its meritlessness. However, both sides advocate for swift action from the Supreme Court, urging a resolution independent of Trump’s case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court faces a critical juncture in considering the disqualification of public officials under the 14th Amendment, with Griffin’s appeal adding complexity to an already intricate legal landscape.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Supreme Court to Weigh New Mexico Official's Disqualification Under 14th Amendment first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Former President Donald Trump is seeking to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that removed him from the state’s ballot for the 2024 presidential election. In a brief submitted by Trump’s attorneys to the US Supreme Court, they argue that the state court’s ruling was in error and unprecedented. Here are the key points:

Trump’s Legal Argument

Trump’s attorneys contend that the Colorado Supreme Court wrongly applied Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, claiming that as a former president, Trump is not an ‘officer of the United States’ under the Constitution. They further assert that even if Section 3 applied, Trump did not engage in conduct that qualifies as ‘insurrection’ on January 6, 2021.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Potential Chaos and Bedlam

According to Trump’s legal team, upholding the Colorado decision could lead to chaos and bedlam if other state courts follow suit, excluding Trump from their ballots. They argue that this would have far-reaching consequences for the electoral process and potentially impact the Republican presidential nominee’s candidacy.

US Supreme Court’s Involvement

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Trump’s appeal, accepting the case brought forward by the former president. The court is simultaneously dealing with other matters that could impact the federal criminal case against Trump. The Colorado ruling is on hold pending the US Supreme Court’s resolution.

House Speaker and GOP Support

House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and numerous GOP lawmakers have expressed their support for Trump in a friend-of-the-court brief. They argue that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision infringes on Congress’ power by enforcing the ‘insurrectionist ban’ without proper authorization. The Republicans fear that this ruling could encourage state officials to label political opponents as insurrectionists, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

GOP Secretaries of State’s Concerns

A group of GOP secretaries of state from various states, including Missouri, Alabama, and Ohio, submitted a brief urging the court to prevent disqualification of candidates based on Section 3. They express concerns about potential abuse if partisan elected officials can make unreviewable disqualification decisions without constitutional protections.

National Implications

The outcome of this case extends beyond Colorado, as Trump has been removed from the ballot in Colorado and Maine. Judges across the country are closely monitoring this case, with the Oregon Supreme Court dismissing a similar case last week, advising challengers to potentially refile based on the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Colorado case.

The oral arguments for the Colorado case are scheduled for February 8, setting the stage for a significant legal battle with implications for Trump’s candidacy and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Trump Urges Supreme Court Reversal of Colorado Decision first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a groundbreaking decision, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, disqualified former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot in the upcoming U.S. presidential primary election. This move follows Colorado’s similar decision, marking Trump as the first candidate in U.S. history deemed ineligible for the presidency due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The Ruling

Bellows, in a 34-page ruling, asserted that Trump, the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, incited an insurrection by spreading false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. She highlighted how he subsequently urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to disrupt the certification of the vote, a move she deemed an assault on the foundations of the government, as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Legal Response and Appeals

While the ruling can be appealed to a state Superior Court, Bellows suspended her decision pending the court’s ruling. Trump’s campaign swiftly condemned the decision, labeling it as “atrocious.” Trump’s legal team argued that his remarks were protected by the right to free speech and denied engaging in insurrection.

Constitutional Grounds

Former Maine lawmakers, including Republicans Kimberley Rosen and Thomas Saviello and Democrat Ethan Strimling, played a pivotal role in pushing for Trump’s disqualification. They cited a provision in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits individuals from holding office if they participated in “insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to the United States.

Potential Implications

While the ruling currently affects only Maine’s March primary election, its repercussions may extend to Trump’s eligibility for the November general election. This decision intensifies the pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to address broader questions regarding Trump’s eligibility under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Legal Landscape

Trump faces legal challenges in federal and Georgia cases related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Although not charged with insurrection concerning the Capitol attack, the disqualification rulings raise questions about his candidacy. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, including three Trump-nominated justices, further complicates the legal landscape.

National Response

Colorado’s earlier decision to disqualify Trump set a precedent, and Trump’s vow to appeal to the Supreme Court suggests an escalating legal battle. Despite some rejections in other states, the Maine ruling underscores the ongoing efforts by advocacy groups and anti-Trump voters to challenge his candidacy using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Electoral Dynamics

Maine, considered likely Democratic, traditionally favors President Joe Biden. However, Trump’s past success in securing one electoral vote from the state makes it an electoral battleground. The unique setup allowing Maine to split its Electoral College votes adds complexity to the presidential race.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Maine Disqualifies Trump from Primary Ballot Over Capitol Attack first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A federal judge in Boise, Idaho, has issued a preliminary order blocking the enforcement of a state law that prohibits gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormones, for transgender minors. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, marks a crucial victory for families who had challenged the law, arguing that it violated their rights.

Constitutional Grounds: 14th Amendment Upheld

Judge Winmill’s decision is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, explicitly citing guarantees of equal protection and due process. The judge asserted that these constitutional provisions empower parents with the right to seek gender-affirming care for their children, emphasizing the principle of equal treatment under the law for transgender children.

Fundamental Parental Rights

In the written order, Judge Winmill, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, underscored the importance of parental rights in making fundamental decisions about the well-being and care of their children. “Parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children,” Winmill stated, affirming the role of parents in determining appropriate medical care for their transgender children.

ACLU Response and Determination

Li Nowlin-Sohl of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the plaintiffs, expressed gratitude for the court’s recognition of the potential harm posed by the banned law. “Transgender children should receive equal treatment under the law,” Nowlin-Sohl remarked, emphasizing the ACLU’s commitment to challenging the ban until Idaho is deemed a safe place for every family.

Attorney General’s Response and Planned Appeal

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador voiced disagreement with the ruling, asserting that it “places children at risk of irreversible harm.” Labrador announced the state’s intention to appeal the decision, highlighting the ongoing legal battles surrounding gender-affirming treatments in various states.

Legislative Context: Idaho’s Ban and National Landscape

Idaho had previously enacted a law prohibiting puberty blockers, hormones, or surgeries that aimed to align a child’s perceived gender with their biological sex. This law placed Idaho among approximately 20 Republican-led states that have implemented or considered restrictions on gender-affirming treatments.

Legal Landscape: Divided Courts and Pending Supreme Court Petition

The legal landscape regarding gender-affirming bans remains divided. While most lower-level courts have blocked such bans, appeals courts have sided with states, creating a complex scenario. Notably, the 11th U.S. Circuit upheld an Alabama ban, and the 6th Circuit supported bans in Kentucky and Tennessee. Families challenging the Tennessee ban have sought Supreme Court intervention, marking the first petition.

Ongoing Litigation: Case Details

The case in question, titled Poe et al. v. Labrador, is currently being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, with case number 1:23-cv-00269. The plaintiffs are represented by Li Nowlin-Sohl of the ACLU, Alexia Korberg of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and others. The state is represented by Lincoln Wilson of the Idaho Attorney General’s office and other legal representatives.

The post Federal Judge Rules Against Idaho’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Minors first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The US Supreme Court finds itself at the epicenter of a seismic legal and political storm, grappling with the question of Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president in 2024. A recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court has set the stage for a high-stakes legal battle that transcends traditional partisan lines, with potential consequences rippling through the fabric of American democracy. Legal experts assert that while the ultimate decision holds immense significance, how the justices arrive at their conclusion may be equally pivotal.

Decoding the Legal Quagmire

Constitutional Dilemmas

The controversy revolves around a constitutional provision that, if interpreted in a certain way, could bar Trump from the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado. The decision from the Colorado Supreme Court, citing Trump’s alleged role in the January 6 Capitol riot, adds a layer of complexity to an already tumultuous election season. The legal labyrinth includes debates on whether the constitutional provision applies to the president, the extent of Trump’s actions that could disqualify him, and even the jurisdiction of federal courts in deciding such matters.

The Trump Campaign’s Response

In response to the Colorado decision, the Trump campaign vows a swift appeal to the US Supreme Court. This move follows a broader legal landscape where Trump faces challenges related to immunity from criminal prosecution and a separate request from Capitol riot defendants from January 6.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

The Crucial Role of Consensus

Lessons from History

Legal scholars draw parallels with the landmark 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, emphasizing the importance of the Supreme Court presenting a unified front. The fear of a divided decision, akin to the one in 2000, looms large, with concerns about potential damage to the court’s legitimacy and institutional integrity. Justices committed to institutionalism, such as Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, are expected to be pivotal in steering toward a consensus decision.

Seeking an Off-Ramp

The challenge for the Supreme Court lies in achieving consensus amidst complex legal questions. Harvard law professor Guy-Uriel Charles suggests that finding a legislative solution could be an off-ramp, citing the possibility of Congress passing legislation to enforce the constitutional provision. This approach could provide a unifying path for the justices, avoiding more politically charged determinations.

Navigating Thorny Questions

Interpreting Insurrection

A central and contentious issue revolves around whether Trump’s actions on January 6 amount to an “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, as outlined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The political stakes are high, with Democrats asserting that Trump’s actions qualify him for permanent disqualification from public office. Legal experts, however, question the desirability of the court ruling on whether the leading GOP candidate is an insurrectionist, given Trump’s current legal entanglements and prior impeachment proceedings.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Legal Roadblocks

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision introduces additional legal complexities, including questions related to the political question doctrine and Trump’s status as an officer of the United States. These intricate issues could prevent the Supreme Court from delving into the case’s merits.

The Broader Implications

Defining Democracy’s Course

Legal analysts posit that the court’s decisions on Trump’s eligibility could shape the very foundation of American democracy. With cases related to Trump and the January 6 events piling up, the current Supreme Court term is deemed one of the most consequential since the Reconstruction Era. The Chief Justice and his colleagues face the daunting task of navigating the intricacies of the law while balancing the personalities and perspectives present on the bench.

In the words of constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, this term might fundamentally decide “what it means to be a democracy.” However, the quest for a majority consensus within the Supreme Court remains a formidable challenge given the diverse perspectives of its justices.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post The Impactful Legal Landscape: Trump’s Eligibility Case Echoes Across the Nation first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The legal saga involving University of Illinois Chicago School of Law Professor Jason J. Kilborn continues as he files an appeal with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The request comes after his civil rights lawsuit, triggered by the dismissal of his case related to the use of abbreviated racial and gender slurs in a December 2020 final exam, faced setbacks.

Legal Allegations and Dismissal
Kilborn’s 2022 complaint, citing violations of the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and state laws, targeted university administrators, including former law school dean Julie Spanbauer. However, U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis dismissed Kilborn’s First Amendment retaliation claim, stating his speech didn’t involve matters of public concern. The 14th Amendment due process claims were also rejected, leading to the rejection of state law claims.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Controversial Exam Question
In 2020, the Black Law Students Association called for Kilborn’s resignation from the academic affairs committee, urging the university to establish a policy against “offensive and culturally insensitive” language. The professor faced administrative leave in the spring of 2021 following complaints about his conduct, including the use of derogatory terms and dismissive remarks targeting racial minorities.

Expanded Allegations
The Office for Access and Equity detailed additional complaints, spanning remarks during a January 2020 lecture, denouncing the participation of minorities in civil rights claims and characterizing media stories about white men negatively. The office’s letter alleged that Kilborn’s behavior substantially interfered with Black students’ law school participation, leading to his administrative leave in spring 2021.

Support and Opposition
Kilborn received support from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s faculty defense fund. Despite criticism and complaints, some law professors, including Andrew Koppelman and Brian Leiter, supported Kilborn’s actions, deeming the objections “foolish persecution.”

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Statements
The University of Illinois Chicago refrained from commenting on the ongoing litigation, emphasizing its policy on pending cases. Paul Vickrey, Kilborn’s attorney, expressed anticipation for presenting the case in the 7th Circuit, highlighting the importance of clarifying First Amendment boundaries in public universities.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post University of Illinois Chicago School of Law Professor Appeals Dismissal of Civil Rights Lawsuit first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Constitutional Maneuver at Play

Amidst a flurry of legal challenges former President Donald Trump faced in both federal and state courts, a significant movement is gaining momentum across several states. This movement aims to prevent Trump’s inclusion on primary and general election ballots. The foundation of this effort rests on a relatively obscure constitutional provision known as the disqualification clause, which is nestled within Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Don’t waste time scrolling through job postings. BCG Attorney Search has the best legal jobs in your area.

Voter Lawsuits Invoke Constitutional Argument

This constitutional maneuver has come into play through two separate lawsuits initiated by voters in Colorado and Minnesota. These legal actions assert that Donald Trump is constitutionally unsuitable for federal office due to his alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Simplify your legal research. Subscribe to JDJournal and stay informed with just a click.

Setting the Stage for High-Stakes Legal Battles

The lawsuits targeting the former president have now set the stage for high-stakes legal battles. These upcoming legal showdowns serve as a critical litmus test for assessing the strength and applicability of a constitutional provision established in the wake of the Civil War. The outcomes of these legal proceedings possess the potential to impact the Republican primary profoundly. Notably, if Trump, currently the leading contender for the GOP nomination, is deemed ineligible to pursue the presidency for a third time, it could significantly reshape the political landscape.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Legal Challenges Mount as States Seek to Block Trump from Election Ballots first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a forthcoming law review article set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, two conservative law professors assert that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding public office under the 14th Amendment due to his alleged engagement in insurrection. The scholars, William Baude from the University of Chicago Law School and Michael Stokes Paulsen from the University of St. Thomas School of Law, conducted a detailed analysis using methods of originalism to examine the “insurrection” phrase in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment restricts individuals who have taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution from holding office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution, or if they have “given aid to the enemies” of the United States. This ban can be lifted through a supermajority waiver by Congress. While initially aimed at barring former Confederate legislators and officers from taking office after the Civil War, Section 3 remains applicable beyond that context, as Baude and Paulsen emphasize.

The law professors highlight several factors that they argue support Trump’s disqualification from office under the 14th Amendment. They reference Trump’s claims that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” and “rigged,” along with his alleged attempts to influence state officials, courts, and legislatures to overturn the election results. Baude and Paulsen also point to Trump’s actions in assembling competing state electors and pressuring Congress not to count electoral votes. They underscore his role in the events leading up to the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, including an “incendiary address” to his supporters and his subsequent failure to immediately condemn the violence.

See also: Former President Trump Enters Not Guilty Plea in Election Obstruction Case

The scholars put forth four key arguments in their article:

Let us help you advance your legal career – submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search now.

• Continued Legality: Contrary to the perception of being a dead letter, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment remains legally operative, despite amnesty votes in 1872 and 1898. Those years’ votes removed legal disqualifications already in effect, indicating that the disqualification was inherent.
• Self-Executing Clause: Baude and Paulsen contend that Section 3 is legally self-executing, requiring no additional legislation or court decision to trigger the disqualification. This makes it applicable to state election officials and federal and state lawmakers alike.
• Superseding Conflicting Provisions: The scholars assert that Section 3 supersedes previous constitutional provisions with conflicting terms, even those protecting free speech under the First Amendment.
• Sweeping Disqualification: The authors emphasize the broad scope of disqualification for individuals who have “engaged in” insurrection, which they argue encompasses Trump’s actions aimed at overturning the 2020 presidential election.

Conservative legal scholar Steven Calabresi, from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, supports Baude and Paulsen’s conclusions. He suggests that former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie could challenge Trump’s eligibility for the ballot, prompting a Supreme Court decision on whether Trump incited an insurrection.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

However, not all legal experts agree with Baude and Paulsen’s interpretation. Lawyer James Bopp Jr., who has represented House members contesting Section 3 allegations, criticized their view as overly broad and “completely anti-historical.” Michael McConnell, a Stanford Law School professor, argues that terms like “insurrection” and “rebellion” imply larger-scale uprisings using violence and should not be diluted to include mere civil disturbances. McConnell also warns against granting partisan authorities the power to disqualify opponents from the ballot, citing concerns about undermining democratic processes.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Conservative Law Professors Find 14th Amendment Bars Trump From Office Due to Insurrection first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Wisconsin Federal District Court Judge Lynn Adelman ruled this week that the state’s voter ID law violated the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The federal court found almost 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin lacking the government-issued ID card required to cast a vote in elections.

“To put this number in context,” wrote Adelman, “In 2010 the race for governor in Wisconsin was decided by 124,638 votes, and the race for United States Senator was decided by 105,041 votes. Thus, the number of registered voters who lack a qualifying ID is large enough to change the outcome of Wisconsin elections.”

Adelman also observed that the voter ID law put minorities at a disadvantage and impacted lower-income voters. He wrote, “Blacks and Latinos in Wisconsin are disproportionately likely to live in poverty … and therefore to lack a qualifying ID … because they have suffered from , and continue to suffer from, the effects of discrimination.”

The judge further pointed out that Wisconsin had failed to substantiate the need for the Voter ID law with evidence of voter fraud. He observed the evidence at the trial demonstrated, “virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.” He observed that the defense had failed to provide a single instance of voter impersonation in Wisconsin in the recent past, and, as a result, “Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes.”

Adelman’s judgment on the issue gains added significance because it is the first time a voter ID law has been challenged and struck down under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Traditionally, Section 2 has been used in cases that involved dilution of votes like remapping legislative districts. After the U.S. Supreme Court literally killed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act last year, the Department of Justice have been trying to use Section 2 to challenge voter ID laws that are suspect of being discriminatory.

If you are looking for attorney jobs in Wisconsin, click here for current openings.

The post Federal Court Strikes Down Wisconsin Voter ID Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

President Barack Obama was urged by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Sunday to pass on the scheduled debate regarding the increase of the debt ceiling by declaring the cap unconstitutional.

Pelosi made an appearance on “Face the Nation” on CBS to discuss her endorsement of the 14th Amendment option. The option says that Congress does not have power to use the debt ceiling as a device to take Congress hostage because the validity of the debt “shall not be questioned.”

On the show, Pelosi said, “Well, you ask the Republicans, because we always passed the debt ceiling. When President Bush was president, as he was incurring these massive debts, and the Republicans weren’t saying ‘boo’ at the time. There should be, this is a conversation where there should be no doubt. In fact, if I were president, I’d use the 14th Amendment, which says that the debt of the United States will always be paid.”

Bob Schieffer responded with, “You would just go ahead and do it, you wouldn’t wait for the Congress?”

Pelosi answered: “I would just go do it. But the Congress has incurred much of this debt. And so what are you saying, we incurred it but we’re not going to pay it? If you want to say, ‘We are not going to do it so much in the future,’ well that’s another thing. But you can’t say, ‘I’m not paying my past debts.'”

The option in the 14th Amendment is gaining steam amongst Democrats on Capitol Hill as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urged Obama to deploy the option when the two were thinking about the fiscal cliff deal.

On the other side of things, the White House continues to resist the option, claiming that it does not have the legal power to use it and if it did, if the White House had to use it then bad economic signs would be sent.

“This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling — period,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said back in the month of December.

The post Nancy Pelosi Urges Obama to Use 14th Amendment Option first appeared on JDJournal Blog.