Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"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."
I also hate the high spending levels (entitlements, military, etc). Yet, we have to pay the debt that we have already incurred.
"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."
I also hate the high spending levels (entitlements, military, etc). Yet, we have to pay the debt that we have already incurred.
Paying the debt that has already been incurred has zero to do with raising the debt ceiling. That says nothing about creating MORE debt, it only speaks of paying for pensions, services rendered and the military.
Paying the debt that has already been incurred has zero to do with raising the debt ceiling. That says nothing about creating MORE debt, it only speaks of paying for pensions, services rendered and the military.
First, that money that has already been spent and needs to be borrowed to pay the bills.
Second, Congress sets spending and revenue and can certainly spend more money that it raises. Once passed, the President, by act of Congress, is legally obliged to spend that money. If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, the President still has the legal obligation to spend appropriations and should have the implicit power to find other ways of borrowing.
If Congress wants halt debt, stop passing unbalanced budgets. Not raising the ceiling is like maxing out your credit card and refusing to pay the monthly bill.
Pelosi doesn't care how high the debt goes, her children and grandchildren will be very well taken care of.
This is serious stuff AA/NYC and just a passing comment doesn't get the job done. To that end I would say that if the Repubs don't lock arms and hold fast against this and force a "default" NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN to curtail spending at the federal level until the DOLLAR COLLAPSES.
A key element in this debate is over use of the Fourteenth Amendment and this provision, Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, states that...
Quote:
“[t]he 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.”
That means "legally" that there is a legal interpretation that can be made as a constitutionally viable case that ANYTHING that interferes with the payment and accounting for the public debt is unconstitutional. Respected legal scholars/journalist have made that very point in support of Obozo making an end-run around Congress(1). Wait though...doesn't it say "the validity"? That doesn't mean that by not agreeing to extending the debt AGAIN..., that this section is being violated. Others with far greater credentials than mine are making that opposing case though.
However, there is a contrarian opinion by libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano that breaks down the meaning of words and makes his position effectively by taking into consideration the ORIGINAL CONTEXT of this provision in the Fourteenth Amendment. Pelosi is a borderline moron and doesn't understand that only Congress controls the federal purse-strings, NOT the Executive Branch.(2).
So what we are heading for should the House stand firm against Obozo is this interpretation taken to The Court of Nine, SCOTUS, for argument and resolution to resolve another constitutional crisis. And it will all come down to, I predict, a parsing of word meanings. It's imo still a toss-up as to which way a majority opinion will go, but...
I'm for PUSHING for that method of resolution.
Why? If the House relents and again rubber-stamps the Obozo debt extension they've conceded a legal issue that has NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED at the highest court in the land. They've quit out of political trepidation and Compromised by Capitulationand set a precedent of behavior against the "public interest".Not the way to advocate as the representatives of "We the People" in "the peoples' House".
The 14th Amendment does state the president may usurp authority only given to congress.
I would say this is an impeachable offense if he does try.
Where friend does it state that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
