and what happens if no deal on the debt creeling is reached? is president obama's last best option to invoke the 14th amendment, to bypass congress and borrow beyond the debt limit? conservatives are usually quick to defend the constitution, but congressman tim scott of south carolina says that move might be worthy of, believe it or not, impeachment. how's this for a fight? fox is going after the media watchdog group media matter saying it doesn't deserve its tax exempt status, it's a partisan operation they say. the same charge media manages and routinely makes against fox, that it's partisan. after escaping a potential death penalty conviction, casey anthony is going free. she'll be released from jail wednesday. one of the jurors says doing so may have made them sick to their stomachs. in fact, she said 2-it-did. those on the jury. finally, simple questions don't always illicit simple answers. that's in the "side show" tonight. and serious business in negotiations running through sunday. james clyburn of south carolina, the assistant democratic leader. mr. clyburn, i always like having you on the show because you're so, so reminded and you've got some serious american history behind you, for better or worse or both. what do you make of this fact that the president of the united states is going big casino? talking of $4 trillion cut over ten years? he's really putting the really dicey issues on the table, social security, medicare, big if, big i-f, if republicans backs off its no tax position. what do you make of that? >> thank you so much for having me. you're kind with your compliments. let me say this when we first started the biden talks being in that room, $4 trillion was a number we all talked about. we did feel, though that we couldn't get there, but that we should do something that would be a down payment on getting there. something between $1.4 and $2 trillion. and so these discussions we've had. and i would say to those people who have gotten so nervous about the president putting things like medicare on the table to remind them that when medicare part d was done, we brought in to support medicare that a lot of pharmaceuticals didn't have. they is medicaid. putting medicare out there and not allowing for adjusted rates, that's what got the costs up. if we had negotiated rates for medicare, same for the v.a., for veterans in the v.a., veterans administration, that could see a tremendous cost savings. so i am hopeful that that's the kind of thing that the president is talking about, when he puts things like medicare on the table, and not a cut in any benefits, but the kind of negotiated rates that you have for veterans. >> let's talk about the people who were involved in this. i've never seen such a vivid staging, if you will, of the key people running this country. i think i see our constitution on display. the spread not a dictator. he doesn't call the shots. he's got to deal with the republican speaker of the house, boehner. deal with the democratic and republican leadership. eugene robinson will be on the show in a couple minutes. i want to go through the baseball leadership cards with him. a couple i want to go over with you. do you think speaker boehner is really free act according to his conscience or is he being held back by maybe 60 to 80 tea party people led by eric cantor, the number two man on the republican side, who are basically terrorizing him and threatening him if he cuts a deal somewhere down the middle? >> well, i would say this about, speaker boehner. i've known him for a long time. we have interacted both on the floor together and we have done so socially. i've played golf with him. i know him pretty well, i think, and i do believe that he is in a box when it comes to this, this issue, of the debt ceiling, because he has a number of people -- i hope it's not 80. i've been saying between 40 and 50. if it's up to 80, we really are in trouble, and she in trouble as well. but that's what's got him in a box. he knows the art of compromise. he know what's it takes to get legislation done, and for him to be in the position he's currently in, i really have a lot of compassion for where he is. >> okay. let's try to be balanced here and go to the liberal side of, the progressive side of the democratic party. with your caucus and you're a leader of the home caucus, got people from california, from the bay area, people from the northeast, from the new york city area. members of the black caucus. people that are very liberal. will they go along with any kind of deal that questions social security, like a means test for rich people, something that says after certain income level or certain something you don't get a cola. are they willing to attempt, if you will, with these sort of sacred texts, social security, soar that off the table? >> absolutely not off the table. if you talk to members of my party they will tell you, it's across the board. they believe we ought to look at something like lifting the caps off of social security. we think it's a problem with people making $106,000 a year paying 100% -- paying social security on 100% of their income and a person making $212,000 a year only paying social security on 50% of his or her income. we need to take a look at that, and that raises money. means testing is something that needs to be looked at, and i can tell you there is strong support in both wings, all seven talks in the democratic caucus for taking that kind of a look at social security benefits. >> what a big pick cheer you're looking at now. congressman, thanks. let's look at eric cantor, definitely the wimp on the right, talking on "morning joe." let's listen. >> the president wants to talk loopholes fine. we need offsetting tax cuts somewhere else. we're not for raising taxes. that's not the right thing to do with a sputtering economy and so many people in america out of work. >> you know, he reminds me of the young dick nixon. so many times i watch this guy, cantor. he is a fire eater on the right. he seems to be cutting that herd off from the leadership, from speaker boehner and riling them. here he is saying we'll fix up the tax code a bit but with no increase in tax when we have a government that's only taxing 16% of the gdp and spending 25% of it. a deficit like that and he won't even talk bringing up the revenues to catch up to the spending? he's an ideologue and i don't think he is a pure opportunistic politician. seriously, you don't have to go out like that. i'm doing it for television. you got to work with the guy. is that what we're facing? opportunism on the right playing leadership games with the tea party crowd. >> once again, nobody in our meetings, nobody in our caucus, is talking about raising rates. we are talking about closing loopholes. we're talking about getting rid of these subsidies for big oil. these people don't need these subsidies. they will tell you they don't need them. get rid of that stuff. we're talking about stop giving tax cuts to people who send jobs overseas. i think eric cantor knows that nobody is talking about raising taxes. we are talking about getting rid of these subsidies, closing the loopholes and, really, having an effective tax rate. they keep talking about a 35% corporate rate, when we all know it's somewhere between 16% and 19% in terms of effectiveness because of all of these loopholes. if people were paying what the rate is, i don't mind dropping it to 25%, 26%, just collect that much and get rid of the loopholes. >> okay. congressman james clyburn, one of the house leadership. thanks so much for joining us. pulitzer prize winning columnist, eugene, look at these leaders. you're on msnbc and now it's time to analyze. this is "hardball." look at people acting now a big deal coming up perhaps sunday. going back again with the president. take a look at -- hold those pictures up there. i'd like gene to go through these names. the president wants a deal. right? >> yes. the president wants a deal, yes. >> and he's going to make concessions on the left with things like -- >> willing to make concessions in order to get a deal, and he -- he's put himself in a position to almost win either way, because if he gets a deal, he's -- you know, he's the guy that got it done. he will live out -- >> he's a leader. >> he's a leader. he's a compromiser. and he will have moved the republicans off the no new revenue ever position. it's just -- >> let's look at the second person on that picture. look at the big four again. the four faces. how about speaker boehner? does he want a deal? >> he is in a box. i think he does want a deal. i've heard that he wants a deal. he's had these secret meetings with obama. i think he takes his constitutional responsibility seriously. >> don't become a deadbeat country? >> it's don't become a deadbeat country. you can't let the country default. >> two dealmakers there. here we are, let's go to steny hoyer. house democratic leader. number two man. he wants a deal? >> he wants a deal definitely. >> durbin is out there. durbin backed the bipartisan commission. >> yeah. >> here are the four dealmakers. now the interesting guys and people. look at other people, of the baseball cards. let's look at these three guy. eric cantor. >> uh-huh. >> does he really want a deal or does he want armageddon? >> i don't think he would. >> he wants to bring down boehner, probably? >> well, you know, that's the question. the dynamic between boehner and cantor. i think cantor does want to bring down boehner and not give boehner enough slack to make a deal. >> because if boehner cut as deal with the president of the united states with the party behind him, he's a leader. >> yeah. >> a couple other people. who's the other person? look at other person who made it. mitch mcconnell. does he want a deal or armageddon? does he want -- you've said he wanted to defeat president obama at all costs. >> his number one priority, make obama a one-term president. he wants to stand pat. he doesn't want the country defaulting but he doesn't really want -- >> would it break his heart if obama was in a disaster this week? >> it would the not break his heart. >> look at nancy pelosi. i have to play agnostic. i know she's a liberal progressive leader in the congress. does she want a deal that touches social security? that perhaps takes away the democrat gain on medicare to blame the republicans? >> entirely depends on how it touches it social security and medicare. ideally, democrats would not want a deal that has anything to do with medicare, because they've got a great medicare issue to go after republicans on, but if that's what it takes to get a deal, and if the medicare cuts are not draconian, they'll take t. ladies and gentlemen, together, my very smart fellow here, analyst harks gone through the list and agrees completely with me. the people who want a deal sometime between now and august 2nd are the president of the united states. steny hoyer, democrat. democrat number two in the senate, dick durbin and, john boehner speaker of the house. on the republican side, the people who are a problem, mitch mcconnell, certainly eric cantor, certainly -- well, leave it at that. perhaps pelosi. we just don't know. fascinating stuff. coming up, what are president obama's options if he doesn't get a deal? look at a deep perhaps by august 2nd. what if he doesn't get a deal? can we bypass congress under the 14th amendment and keep the country going by executive power and force the country to meet its bills? we'll hear from a brilliant columnist says. hear what she says. this is not radical. this is constitutional. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] things seem better with travelocity's best price guarantee. our girl's an architect. our boy's a genius. we are awesome parents! biddly-boop. [ male announcer ] if you find a lower rate on a room you've booked, we won't just match it. we'll give you $50 towards your next trip. [ gnome ] it's go time. talk about strange bedfellows? south carolina democrat jim demint teamed up with maine moderate olympia snow to call for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. they pushed for this in an op-ed in today's "wall street journal." snow's up for re-election next year and teaming up with demint will no doubt help her fend off a primary challenge from the right. politics makes strange bedfellows. we'll be right back. is now honey nut cheerios! yup, america's favorite. so we're celebrating the honey sweetness, crunchy oats and... hey! don't forget me!! honey nut cheerios. make it your favorite too! welcome back to "hardball." what are president obama's options in this fight? starkest terms, defeat. or default, obviously. a third option floated by the treasury secretary himself. could president obama invoke the 14th amendment to keep the united states from defaulting on our debt? the editor of the nation and jeffrey rose a constitutional law professor at georgetown university. let me read the 14th amendment section 4. it reads in part, the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law shall not be questioned. now here's the secretary of the treasury, timothy geithner, on the unconstitutionality of congress not raising the debt ceiling. let's listen. >> i think there are some people who are pretending not to understand it. who think there's leverage for them in threatening a default. i don't understand it as negotiating positions. think about it. you're going say, i'm going to read you the 14th amendment. >> we'll stipulate i. want to read this one thing. >> it's paper clipped in his -- >> the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law including debts incurred for bounties in services in suppressing insurrection ever rebellion, the important thing, shall not be questioned. >> there you go. thank you for joining us from the nation there. i read your op-ed in the paper. powerful stuff. take a couple of minutes and explain for those who don't know about this amendment in the constitution about the president's authority in this situation? >> interesting that secretary geithner is carrying this around. this is a last resort, but it is the fourth section of the 14th amendment passed in the wake of the civil law, and it was -- enacted for many reasons but in the public debt arena, that the confederacy, debts would not be paid but the public debt paid to the government. what we have chris, an interesting moment in our time where if the president does a plain reading of the constitution, he has both an option and an obligation to enforce this and it kind of throws it back at the tea party, in a sense, which has waived -- waved the constitution as its document. it's interesting that today the white house is talking about doomsday scenarios but we are facing real financial calamity at home and abroad and this is a tool a bow in the president's tool kit, leverage with a republican party that so far refused to cooperate. will they walk away from cuts, if the president has to, he needs to invoke this, and he has not spoken about it, but i do think it would give him a leadership role to speak concretely at this point in these negotiations. >> let's look at one thing he did say along these lines. going to the law professor, and i want to hear more about your thinking. president obama yesterday asked about invoking the fourth amendment at yesterday's town hall. >> i don't think we should get to the constitutional issue. congress has the responsibility to make sure we pay our bills. we've always paid them in the past. the notion that the u.s. is going to default on its debt is just irresponsible. >> professor rose of georgetown, washington university. i said georgetown. two great universities in town here. let me ask you, is that accurate have is that your reading of the constitution as well? >> it is. i agree with katerina. i believe it's great that geithner is waving this. it is the sieve is war, the south won repudiating its war debt and consume the confederate debt. congress said they couldn't do this. in the 1930s during the new deal, fdr went off the gold standard. actually that was a repudiation of the public debt. it changed the values of the bonds. that might mean that president obama is on strong grounds here, but if anyone were to challenge it the supreme court might not want to get involved. i can imagine they would skip out. go ahead, katrina. >> in terms of the challenge, a lawsuit -- jeffrey, correct me if i'm wrong, but it would have to come from congress. a joint resolution. i don't see that happening with the democratic senate. more important is that president, again, he's a constitutional lawyer. of course there's troubling questions about executive overreach, but we have seen an unwillingness to negotiate, and i think as you said at the beginning, chris, this is not radicalism. this is constitutionalism and it is worth reminding americans of what is in this document that could be used in this crisis at a moment when we face true calamity. >> you know, we've had a big debate here. you've had editorial meetings as the nation. we have them here with producers. some people i work with, maybe i'm with them sometimes and maybe i am. in fact i think i am. some people on right who wil say, michele bachmann a few others like her, who are lawyers and should know, they'll say, well, it's not really going to be a catastrophe if we don't pay our debts as a country. i always say, wait a minute. i'm thinking, wait a minute. maybe that's the kind of rick they're quite willing to take, because we who have an armageddon situation, we get into something like greece is in now or portugal island, that won't be so bad for the opposition. because then they can say, see how the democrats messed it up? >> well, you raise an important question, chris. i do think -- first of all, this country has gone through economic calamity and catastrophe in these last few years, but it could unwind and unravel at home and abroad. there is a legitimate question to be raised, witnessed how the republicans have engaged in these negotiations as to whether the republicans are committed to tanking an economic in order to up-end and overtake and -- to take out and to defeat president obama, and i don't think that is the way this country should be governed. i think there needs to be negotiating. >> do you think they're doing that? >> absolutely. you had a list of people ut there before, and mitch mcconnell, senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky. what did he say, chris, his first priority. this at a time of economic pain and catastrophe, to defeat president obama. but i think, again did is important to understand that there is a constitutional option. the president, and you know this, chris, is not a president who has been one to speak forcefully to come into confrontation. he is confrontation averse. but this could be done in a way to elevate, to rally people, to both a cause, to a need, to focus on the economic issues and to the constitution to retake the constitution would not be a bad thing at a moment when i believe it has not been used well in these last years. >> to the professor for a last thought and big one. is it possible? a political assessment. do you think possibly the secretary of the treasury has been given the job of floating this option, if it comes to a midnight situation and we're watching the world markets, bond markets and bond vigilantes ready to attack and see our country under danger, ultimately, like fights over war power, in the end it's the command are and chief hawaii to fight for the country. back not go back to the congress if they don't want to fight with him? >> absolutely. obama might not raise them now but he's willing to. no one has more standing to do this and these are plausible, strong arguments that really could mobilize a. great guy to ha