Amendment 14, Section 4: Of No Concern To MLK, Jr.(?)!

Discussion in 'Economy' started by mascale, Jan 11, 2013.

  1. mascale

    mascale VIP Member

    Feb 22, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    House Speaker Boehner has sent the invitation, to the Oval Office, to report on the State of the Union. The date set is February 12, which anyone might suggest is to honor the concept of things getting warmer, and starting to get even hell-fire warmer(?)! After Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, jailed the political opposition, forced loyalty oaths on the clergy, and shuttered the opposition press: Not even the Republicans went out and made a movie about it(?).

    Hollywood, however, went out and made a movie about it, not even starring a Fonda(?)!

    Hollywood does understand about the money, and about the credit. So having botched the abolition of slavery in Amendment 13, then in Amendment 14 there appears section 4:

    "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."

    Even at the time, this was mostly about White People--any that had not already been slaughtered or maimed for life. Amendment 2 had been passed in the context--of the strong need to decimate the indigenous tribes. That had not worked out so well in the Civil War, when militias were rampant--behaving, in fact, mostly European. Somehow, This part of Amendment 14 had to do with the money. Movies could in fact be made(?).

    People will contend that even Martin Luther King, Jr., who famously left Corretta nine million dollars--would contend that the U. S. Treasury in fact has a mandate to keep up the payments, Congressional window-dressing limits or none. Article I, Section 8, Clause One in fact gives Congress the authority to borrow. Mostly the debt ceiling limit is itself only more like that. Mostly Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 is the one at basis of a contention to keep up the payments. Congress can borrow, or authorize, 5 trillion dollars right now. It can say it won't borrow any more money anymore, right now! If it fails to honor an appropriation, however: Then the Constitution has been violated. What Congress authorizes or not is mostly the press corps reporting of it. The appropriations concept, however, is separate and is separately treated. Even Senator Trent Lott could understand about Separately treated. Anyone else could note that "equal" is not about the separate treatment.

    The debt ceiling is more like an authorization, anyone should be noting. The debt ceiling is a statutory fiction that says that the people don't want these bills. Once the same people do Article I, Section 9, Clause Seven, however: Then the people have decided something else. Then the people are obligated to pay those bills. It may appear discomforting that Treasury has no public backing(?)! Fortunately, in the credit market, based economy--anyone even notes that about the money(?)!.

    So clearly it all makes sense(?)!

    It would not have happened in the Civil War, that suddenly all the bills that had been appropriated, would have stopped being paid. All the union troops would suddenly have to come on home, and do the farm chores--that some. . . ."deity(?)". . .had created(?)! Lincoln knew about all the Civil Rights pucky when it came to any person's rights, especially of White People. Likely, in that era: There was perceived a clear choice between what a deity had intended, different from what Lincoln had intended(?)! Noted above, the Executive issued mandatory orders. Noted in the cited parts of Amendment 14, in fact those bills were also put on the public, Constitutional, payment requirement agenda. There is a mandated authority, even in Article I, and backed(?) in Amendment 14.
    Congress making the withdrawal, means that the Treasury has a mandatory requirement.

    That is what someone should note: That can also be done legally this year(?)! Amendment 2 has famously not been suspended. Amendment 14, Four has not been suspended, nor Article I, Section 9, Clause Seven!

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (Mostly, the Framers likely had more in mind the Reservations made at Pachanga, and at the so many other Casinos(?)! The part about Sitting Bull, getting away with it, likely was not intended! Even then(?)! The NRA has a problem. . .in making its case! They are clearly put into the position of suggesting that "Only Lunatics Should Have Any Weapons(?)!)
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  2. Ernie S.

    Ernie S. Platinum Member

    Nov 14, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Sweet Home Alabama
    You have misspelled your user name. It should read either Mezcal or Mescal

Share This Page