Breaking: Obama To Address Nation Tonight. Will Bypass Congress & Invoke 14th Amendmt

[USArmyRetired]

Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.

Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com

President Obama let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues on Monday, confessing that he’d like to “bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.”

What does sound like he wants to be? That's right, a dictator. I guess we will find out tonight.

This is such a no-brainer, it's shocking that a once respectable publication like The National Journal would even jump into the ridiciculous fray. The 14th amendment REQUIRES that existing debt obligations be paid.

OPERATIVE WORD: EXISTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here’s what the amendment actually says:

"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...[It goes on to say]...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."

The Republican talking heads continue to assert that raising the debt ceiling gives the president carte blanche permission to continue to borrow more money—without the approval of Congress—in order to keep paying off past loans. That is NOT the purpose, nor is it what would happen with a one-paragraph bill raising the debt ceiling this time around.

Republicans are insisting on making this political by choosing to incorporate future budget propositions into this singular CONSTITUTIONAL requirement. Enough!!!

For Congress to limit the amount of the FUTURE debt has NOTHING to do with the debt that has been already authorized by law.

You might wanna check out section 5 of that amendment.

Spot on Leweman. Section 5 is the key and if Obama overrides it, then he has usurped the Constitution and will be impeachable. Section 5 states:

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

This man is actually what our founders warned us about when framing Article 2 Section 1. I am telling you and have been that this man is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office. The framers specifically drafted Article 2 Sect 1 for allegiance purposes only. That's why they wanted a president who was born a natural born citizen to two U.S. citizen parents where undivided born loyalty to his nation could never be questioned. With Obama being born to a British National father ,which gave him as a child born dual citizenship with allegiance to the British Crown, it is apparent his heart is not devoted to America and its people first, only to himself. That is what founder John Jay (1st Supreme Court Justice) warned George Washington about when framing the constitutions presidential clause, having a president with foreign allegiance. Well, it looks like Jay was right. Obama is going to usurp the 14th amendment in order to try to save his reelection chances first and foremost instead of putting the American people and the nation first. Bypassing Congress is doing just that.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Red herring...Non sequitur.

Nobody is questioning the validity of federal debt....Just the size of it.

 

[Sallow]

McConnell told him what to do, since Tea Party moron fanatics are out of control, literally.So it's hardly even Obama's idea. When will these a-holes let the recovery continue?

Ever think that there area some of us who are not real high on THIS economy or THIS government recovering?

Whoa! Anachromism is banned? Did his ignore list break the forum code base?

 

[MaggieMae]

I am not a supporter of this current President however I do not see that he can not raise the ceiling by himself. The way I see the Debt Ceiling, it is an approval of credit. No money is actually being spent. The Congress will still approve spending.

The President of the United States does not have the authority to accept credit from any entity on behalf of the country. Only congress can.

Huh? Where'd that come from? It makes no sense.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Red herring...Non sequitur.

Nobody is questioning the validity of federal debt....Just the size of it.

And?

It needs to be paid.

 

[jillian]

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.

Red herring...Non sequitur.

Nobody is questioning the validity of federal debt....Just the size of it.

you can't question one without the other. you're either in or out...

congress has already appropriated the money that we owe. what is UNconstitutional is not honoring our debt and jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the U.S.

 

[uscitizen]

Ever think that there area some of us who are not real high on THIS economy or THIS government recovering?


True this economy cannot recover it is done. We must make and grow a different economy to have any real and lasting growth.

But alas very few have learned anything about where we really are yet.
And those who do know and are in power are scared shitless to speak about it.

However that is one party who does not want the economy to grow until they are back in power, and that is a tottally different issue and very despicable and even traitorous.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Red herring...Non sequitur.

Nobody is questioning the validity of federal debt....Just the size of it.

And?

It needs to be paid.

And taking on even more debt is a good way to pay it?

How many maxed out credit cards do you have?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Um..Reagan and Bush directly violated the Constitution. You guys had no problem with it. None.

Invoking the 14 Amendment would not be a violation.

And I am pretty sure that's not what's going to happen tonight.

Provide any evidence of your claim. As to the President, he has no power to raise the debt limit, that is solely a function of Congress, and specifically must originate in the House. The 14th Amendment provides no Constitutional authority for him to usurp the Power of Congress.

Which claim?

Reagan violated the Constitution at least twice, seriously, with Iran Contra.

Bush violated the Constitution with his order to torture prisoners, suspending Habeas on both foreign and domestic captures and easedropping on private citizens.

And the 14th..

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.

That basically covers it. But it's doubtful that he would use it until after August 2nd.

Reagan was NEVER connected to Iran Contra even after the Dems in Congress claimed they could. Further Iran Contra was not a violation of Congressional orders.

Weapons were sold to Israel legally. Israel sold said weapons through private citizens and gave the money to Oliver North and Admiral Pointdexter. Once Israel took possession of said weapons what happened to them and any money generated by Israel no longer belongs to the US Government. If a foreign Government donates money to pay for something then the order by Congress that no tax payers money be used is not violated.

As for Bush he ordered no torture. Waterboarding which is the only claim you have to torture, was not illegal until Holder made it so in 2009. In fact it was practiced on our own troops in training cycles.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's what we're currently witnessing with this President. A real Train Wreck for sure.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Red herring...Non sequitur.

Nobody is questioning the validity of federal debt....Just the size of it.

you can't question one without the other. you're either in or out...

congress has already appropriated the money that we owe. what is UNconstitutional is not honoring our debt and jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the U.S.

apparently you can or there would be no debt ceiling to debate.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Red herring...Non sequitur.

Nobody is questioning the validity of federal debt....Just the size of it.

you can't question one without the other. you're either in or out...

congress has already appropriated the money that we owe. what is UNconstitutional is not honoring our debt and jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the U.S.

Wrong.

The feds will take in between $2 - $2.5 trillion this year....All of the bills can be paid if they get serious about cutting spending.

Them's the facts.

 

[Sallow]

And they already did, which is what this is all about. What part of that can't you grasp?

What part can not you grasp that the 14th provides no power to the President? It regulates enforcement of said Amendment TO THE CONGRESS. Any attempt by the President to usurp powers given by the Constitution to Congress IS High Crimes and misdemeanors. His very actions would prove the case.

Yes, we need a good impeachment while we are engaged in two wars and the economy teeters on the brink of collapse. Go for it.............LOL!

Well it didn't stop them when we had a dangerous terrorist named Osama Bin Laden running around.

Why would it stop them now?

Third impeachment..third Democrat. All for trivial reasons.

Bodes well moving forward...that no Republican Presidents have ever gotten impeached.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is such a no-brainer, it's shocking that a once respectable publication like The National Journal would even jump into the ridiciculous fray. The 14th amendment REQUIRES that existing debt obligations be paid.

OPERATIVE WORD: EXISTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here’s what the amendment actually says:

"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...[It goes on to say]...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."

The Republican talking heads continue to assert that raising the debt ceiling gives the president carte blanche permission to continue to borrow more money—without the approval of Congress—in order to keep paying off past loans. That is NOT the purpose, nor is it what would happen with a one-paragraph bill raising the debt ceiling this time around.

Republicans are insisting on making this political by choosing to incorporate future budget propositions into this singular CONSTITUTIONAL requirement. Enough!!!

For Congress to limit the amount of the FUTURE debt has NOTHING to do with the debt that has been already authorized by law.

You might wanna check out section 5 of that amendment.

section 5 states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of that section, or ANY section of the 14th, to the possibility of the President authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling without congress.

The "debt" obviously is larger than the "revenue" we currently have in the Treasury to continue to pay for EXISTING debt. Therefore, legally, in order to not default on that EXISTING debt, the ceiling must be raised. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "new" debt. Nothing, nada, zip.

It's as it you went over the credit limit on your credit card. You still have to pay those extra charges, but you would be cut off from charging anything further. That is ALL raising the debt "ceiling" does too.

 

[Sallow]

Provide any evidence of your claim. As to the President, he has no power to raise the debt limit, that is solely a function of Congress, and specifically must originate in the House. The 14th Amendment provides no Constitutional authority for him to usurp the Power of Congress.

Which claim?

Reagan violated the Constitution at least twice, seriously, with Iran Contra.

Bush violated the Constitution with his order to torture prisoners, suspending Habeas on both foreign and domestic captures and easedropping on private citizens.

And the 14th..

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.

That basically covers it. But it's doubtful that he would use it until after August 2nd.

Reagan was NEVER connected to Iran Contra even after the Dems in Congress claimed they could. Further Iran Contra was not a violation of Congressional orders.

Weapons were sold to Israel legally. Israel sold said weapons through private citizens and gave the money to Oliver North and Admiral Pointdexter. Once Israel took possession of said weapons what happened to them and any money generated by Israel no longer belongs to the US Government. If a foreign Government donates money to pay for something then the order by Congress that no tax payers money be used is not violated.

As for Bush he ordered no torture. Waterboarding which is the only claim you have to torture, was not illegal until Holder made it so in 2009. In fact it was practiced on our own troops in training cycles.

You're officially an idiot.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related]‪Telling Lies‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[boedicca]

Red herring...Non sequitur.

Nobody is questioning the validity of federal debt....Just the size of it.

you can't question one without the other. you're either in or out...

congress has already appropriated the money that we owe. what is UNconstitutional is not honoring our debt and jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the U.S.

Wrong.

The feds will take in between $2 - $2.5 trillion this year....All of the bills can be paid if they get serious about cutting spending.

Them's the facts.

There's also something like $2.4T of bond/IOUs stuffed into the SS lockbox. Treasury can redeem them, which lowers the official level of debt, and then sell new debt on the open market without having to raise the debt ceiling.

If we default, it's a political decision, not a financial one.

 

[uscitizen]

Iran contra? why did Bush I pardon all involved bot indicted and unincdicted?
Which incluede himself btw

 

[dilloduck]

You might wanna check out section 5 of that amendment.

section 5 states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of that section, or ANY section of the 14th, to the possibility of the President authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling without congress.

The "debt" obviously is larger than the "revenue" we currently have in the Treasury to continue to pay for EXISTING debt. Therefore, legally, in order to not default on that EXISTING debt, the ceiling must be raised. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "new" debt. Nothing, nada, zip.

It's as it you went over the credit limit on your credit card. You still have to pay those extra charges, but you would be cut off from charging anything further. That is ALL raising the debt "ceiling" does too.

We haven't gone over our limit yet.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You might wanna check out section 5 of that amendment.

section 5 states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of that section, or ANY section of the 14th, to the possibility of the President authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling without congress.

The "debt" obviously is larger than the "revenue" we currently have in the Treasury to continue to pay for EXISTING debt. Therefore, legally, in order to not default on that EXISTING debt, the ceiling must be raised. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "new" debt. Nothing, nada, zip.

It's as it you went over the credit limit on your credit card. You still have to pay those extra charges, but you would be cut off from charging anything further. That is ALL raising the debt "ceiling" does too.

Once again for the slow and stupid. The Government takes in enough revenue to pay the debt without rising the debt ceiling. And also to repeat, NO ONE is questioning the VALIDITY of the debt.

 

[boedicca]

What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?