Black caucus suggests Obama overrule 14th Amendment and raise debt limit!

[Truthmatters]

I dont see anywhere in that where it states they have the right to NOT pay our bills

 

[Contumacious]

Do you understand what a desenting position is?

it means they didnt agree with the decision and in the minority wrote a desenting remark

Do you understand what a dissenting position is?

it means they didnt agree with the decision and in the minority wrote dissenting remarks.

.

it also means that the dissent does not have the force of law and is not enforceable. it is not precedent...

True. The Dissenters opinion is not the law which means that the MAJORITY OPINION WHICH RULED THAT Congress May ***REPUDIATE*** The National Debt IS THE LAW

 

[BoycottTheday]

Ami getting deported or not!?!

 

[Big Fitz]

yeah, let's just cause a constitutional crisis as well.

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you understand what a dissenting position is?

it means they didnt agree with the decision and in the minority wrote dissenting remarks.

.

it also means that the dissent does not have the force of law and is not enforceable. it is not precedent...

True. The Dissenters opinion is not the law which means that the MAJORITY OPINION WHICH RULED THAT Congress May ***REPUDIATE*** The National Debt IS THE LAW

You quoted the desenting opinion to prove your point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think he will if he has to

I really hope he does.
Biden doesn't have the liberal appel obama does nor would biden get the black vote nor would he get the youth vote.

Nobama is his own worse enemy.

Please obama do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yeah, let's just cause a constitutional crisis as well.

It seems we ARE GOING TO BREAK A RECORD HERE HOW MANY DES IT MAKE NOW?

 

[johnwk]

SEE: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/1...ck-caucus-urges-14th-amendment-debt-limit-fix

i'm wondering.... not withstanding the rightwingnjut rants you loons like to post, why you think the president lifting the debt limit would violate the 14th amendment.

these are the actual words from the amendment that i assume one would find pertinent...

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. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I will assume none of the money was incurred in support of insurrection or rebellion.

so we'll wait for your constitutional acumen

You answered your own question..."The Congress shall have power to enforce", not the president.

JWK

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay income taxes so he can spread their wealth and buy votes, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

 

[KissMy]

I think he will if he has to

I hope he does it & it turns out to be an impeachable offense.

Congress gets to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.

 

[Full-Auto]

I think he will if he has to

I hope he does it & it turns out to be an impeachable offense.

His conspiring to violate federal firearm laws is sufficient.

But we will have to get some canaries to sing before it can be proven beyond a doubt.

Faced with 10 years for each violation should have quite the chorus.

 

[The Rabbi]

Does the "black caucus" allow whites to join?

No.
Rep Steve Cohen from Memphis is a white guy who defeated the local machine to win a seat in a majority black district. He wanted a seat in the black caucus because that's whom he represents. He was turned down.
Of course so was JC Watts. And he is black.

 

[WillowTree]

Does the "black caucus" allow whites to join?

No.
Rep Steve Cohen from Memphis is a white guy who defeated the local machine to win a seat in a majority black district. He wanted a seat in the black caucus because that's whom he represents. He was turned down.
Of course so was JC Watts. And he is black.

that makes the cbc a buncha racists.

 

[shintao]

SEE: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/1...ck-caucus-urges-14th-amendment-debt-limit-fix

i'm wondering.... not withstanding the rightwingnjut rants you loons like to post, why you think the president lifting the debt limit would violate the 14th amendment.

these are the actual words from the amendment that i assume one would find pertinent...

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. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I will assume none of the money was incurred in support of insurrection or rebellion.

so we'll wait for your constitutional acumen

You answered your own question..."The Congress shall have power to enforce", not the president.

JWK

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay income taxes so he can spread their wealth and buy votes, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

Oh, you forgot the pres. has the EO to do what he damned well pleases, and Signing statements to re-define any bill to whatever he wants it to mean. You rightys are in deep shit on this one.

 

[WillowTree]

i'm wondering.... not withstanding the rightwingnjut rants you loons like to post, why you think the president lifting the debt limit would violate the 14th amendment.

these are the actual words from the amendment that i assume one would find pertinent...


I will assume none of the money was incurred in support of insurrection or rebellion.

so we'll wait for your constitutional acumen

You answered your own question..."The Congress shall have power to enforce", not the president.

JWK

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay income taxes so he can spread their wealth and buy votes, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

Oh, you forgot the pres. has the EO to do what he damned well pleases, and Signing statements to re-define any bill to whatever he wants it to mean. You rightys are in deep shit on this one.

yes we know, that's what we been saying the tyrant has been piling shit on America.. we got that.. thanks for verifying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 14th Amendment does not give the president the power to raise the debt limit. Article 1, Section 8 specifically gives that power to the Congress.

Correct.

The president has no authority to raise the debt ceiling.

He may ignore the law, however, and instruct Treasury to carry on business as usual.

So we may be dealing with semantics, rather then law per se.

And Congress obtaining standing in a law suit against Obama would be problematic, to say the least:

When it comes to Congress’s ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics, told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme, it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. “Who has some kind of particularized injury, in fact?” Zasloff asked, and he could not come up with a satisfying answer.

Part of the reason for Zasloff’s difficulty in identifying an appropriate plaintiff is that members of Congress have tried before to sue the president for diminishing their legislative and appropriating power and have typically failed. In 1997, for instance, a small group of congressmen sued Office of Management and Budget director Franklin Raines, arguing that the 1996 Line Item Veto Act diluted their voting power as members of Congress. But seven justices of the Supreme Court disagreed, and did so largely by drawing from an earlier opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia that denied environmental groups standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. In the majority opinion, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that because the congressmen had not shown that their injury was “particularized,” and that the action of the President had not affected the congressmen in a “personal and individual way,” they did not have standing to sue.

In the case of members of Congress suing the current administration over the debt ceiling, the issue of standing would likely fall the same way. Louis Fisher, an expert on the separation of powers who worked at the Congressional Research Service for over twenty five years, wrote in an email that “case law is quite clear that a member of Congress, even if joined by a dozen or two colleagues, cannot get standing in court to contest a constitutional issue.” A joint resolution from Congress could try to get an injunction from the D.C. District Court to stop the Treasury from issuing new debt, but that could be easily vetoed by Democrats in the Senate. Barring that, Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina who is a former special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, says that a legal representative of Congress, perhaps the House counsel, could bring forward a suit on behalf of Congress. But Gerhardt also adds that, if this happened, the Obama administration would likely argue that the case was analogous to the 1997 case against Raines,and therefore there should be no “institutional” standing.

The Debt Ceiling: Why Obama Should Just Ignore It | The New Republic

Needless to say, the political fallout could be catastrophic, however.

 

[The Rabbi]

The 14th Amendment does not give the president the power to raise the debt limit. Article 1, Section 8 specifically gives that power to the Congress.

Correct.

The president has no authority to raise the debt ceiling.

He may ignore the law, however, and instruct Treasury to carry on business as usual.

So we may be dealing with semantics, rather then law per se.

And Congress obtaining standing in a law suit against Obama would be problematic, to say the least:

When it comes to Congress’s ability to stop the Obama administration from ignoring the debt ceiling, legal experts note that the first obstacle standing in its way is the question of standing, or whether a certain party has the right to sue over an issue in the first place. Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who has discussed this idea on a blog that he writes with several other academics, told me that while an order from the president for the Treasury Department to continue issuing new debt sounded extreme, it was unclear who could prove sufficient injury from the decision that would qualify the person to sue the administration in court. “Who has some kind of particularized injury, in fact?” Zasloff asked, and he could not come up with a satisfying answer.

Part of the reason for Zasloff’s difficulty in identifying an appropriate plaintiff is that members of Congress have tried before to sue the president for diminishing their legislative and appropriating power and have typically failed. In 1997, for instance, a small group of congressmen sued Office of Management and Budget director Franklin Raines, arguing that the 1996 Line Item Veto Act diluted their voting power as members of Congress. But seven justices of the Supreme Court disagreed, and did so largely by drawing from an earlier opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia that denied environmental groups standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. In the majority opinion, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that because the congressmen had not shown that their injury was “particularized,” and that the action of the President had not affected the congressmen in a “personal and individual way,” they did not have standing to sue.

In the case of members of Congress suing the current administration over the debt ceiling, the issue of standing would likely fall the same way. Louis Fisher, an expert on the separation of powers who worked at the Congressional Research Service for over twenty five years, wrote in an email that “case law is quite clear that a member of Congress, even if joined by a dozen or two colleagues, cannot get standing in court to contest a constitutional issue.” A joint resolution from Congress could try to get an injunction from the D.C. District Court to stop the Treasury from issuing new debt, but that could be easily vetoed by Democrats in the Senate. Barring that, Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina who is a former special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, says that a legal representative of Congress, perhaps the House counsel, could bring forward a suit on behalf of Congress. But Gerhardt also adds that, if this happened, the Obama administration would likely argue that the case was analogous to the 1997 case against Raines,and therefore there should be no “institutional” standing.

The Debt Ceiling: Why Obama Should Just Ignore It | The New Republic

Needless to say, the political fallout could be catastrophic, however.

The president has no authority to instruyct the treasury to borrow money. Doing so would bring the debt so incurred into question. Thus violating the 14thA. But Obama doesn't give a shit about the Constitution anyway.

 

[johnwk]

i'm wondering.... not withstanding the rightwingnjut rants you loons like to post, why you think the president lifting the debt limit would violate the 14th amendment.

these are the actual words from the amendment that i assume one would find pertinent...


I will assume none of the money was incurred in support of insurrection or rebellion.

so we'll wait for your constitutional acumen

You answered your own question..."The Congress shall have power to enforce", not the president.

JWK

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay income taxes so he can spread their wealth and buy votes, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

Oh, you forgot the pres. has the EO to do what he damned well pleases, and Signing statements to re-define any bill to whatever he wants it to mean. You rightys are in deep shit on this one.

Oh, you forgot to point to the section of the constitution granting to the President EO powers to do what he damned well pleases.


JWK