Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #41
YOU will NOT Be allowed to USE the debt ceiling this go arround period
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Debt Ceiling Threats Not a Winning Formula
- Thread starter nodoginnafight
- Start date
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #42
You better not even try it
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
You better not even try it
can't you put all your threats all in one post?
sheesh
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
YOU will NOT Be allowed to USE the debt ceiling this go arround period
how duz you intend to stop uzzz?
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
YOU will NOT Be allowed to USE the debt ceiling this go arround period
how duz you intend to stop uzzz?
she's the Democracy don't you know
beretta304
Rookie
- Banned
- #46
You better not even try it
I don't think anyone can make up replies as funny and stupid as yours if they tried. To you it comes naturally.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #47
Do you know what Obama will do if you try?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #48
heres a clue you fools.
It was discussed in the last go arround on this one
It was discussed in the last go arround on this one
beretta304
Rookie
- Banned
- #49
Do you know what Obama will do if you try?
What will oBULLY do? Have the media fight his battle with bias?
TM would actually goose-step for him.
Last edited:
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
Do you know what Obama will do if you try?
What will oBULLY do? Have the media fight his battle with bias?
of course, the sell outs to this country that they are
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
YOU will NOT Be allowed to USE the debt ceiling this go arround period
how duz you intend to stop uzzz?
she's the Democracy don't you know
she sounds like a retarded lipquiveringgibblygoobersmacktalkin demoncrap.
beretta304
Rookie
- Banned
- #52
how duz you intend to stop uzzz?
she's the Democracy don't you know
she sounds like a retarded lipquiveringgibblygoobersmacktalkin demoncrap.
If there ever was anyone that's deranged and that's not a joke...it's her. Even her postings indicate issues and I'm not making this post as a shot at her. The others were.
I think she's actually sick.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
beretta304
Rookie
- Banned
- #54
We ignored it the first time...now a second time..
SniperFire
Senior Member
Do you know what Obama will do if you try?
I will say it is indeed idiotic of conservatives to call for an absolute blockage of any debt ceiling increase.
We have a perfect opportunity to make real spending cuts in exchange for cautious increases to be reviewed again in, say, 6 months, where we again correct the spending in exchange for cautious increases.
We aren't going to instantly cut the size of the Federal government almost in half. It is fucking idiotic and suicidal to be calling for it.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #56
dudes hes serious.
You will NOT be allowed to trash this country in an attempt to force the majority to do it YOUR way.
You are the minoroity of the minority.
You lose
You will NOT be allowed to trash this country in an attempt to force the majority to do it YOUR way.
You are the minoroity of the minority.
You lose
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
she's the Democracy don't you know
she sounds like a retarded lipquiveringgibblygoobersmacktalkin demoncrap.
If there ever was anyone that's deranged and that's not a joke...it's her. Even her postings indicate issues and I'm not making this post as a shot at her. The others were.
I think she's actually sick.
I've known TM a long time, she hasn't changed much..
fairly harmless
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #58
Possible methods of bypassing the debt ceiling
[edit] Fourteenth Amendment
During the debate, some scholars, Democratic lawmakers,[76][77][78] and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[89] suggested that the President could declare that the debt ceiling violates the Constitution and issue an Executive Order to direct the Treasury to issue more debt.[79] They point to Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, that states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Others rebutted this argument by pointing to Section 8 of Article 1 and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state that Congress has the power of the purse and the authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.[90]
Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . .To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Amendment XIV, 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. Amendment XIV, Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Arguments Jack Balkin, looking into the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment, argued that Section 4 was adopted to guard against politically-determined default. Referencing the sponsor of the provision, Senator Benjamin Wade, Balkin argued that "the central rationale for Section Four ... was to remove threats of default on federal debts from partisan struggle." Balkin quotes Wade: "every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the varying majorities which may arise in Congress." According to Balkin, this reveals "an important structural principle. The threat of defaulting on government obligations is a powerful weapon, especially in a complex, interconnected world economy. Devoted partisans can use it to disrupt government, to roil ordinary politics, to undermine policies they do not like, even to seek political revenge. Section Four was placed in the Constitution to remove this weapon from ordinary politics."[91]
Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and columnist for The Fiscal Times, argued that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and that the President should disregard the debt limit.[92]
The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel argued that the President could use the public debt section of the Fourteenth Amendment to force the Treasury to continue paying its debts if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling was not reached.[93]
Laurence Tribe, professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, called the argument that the public debt clause can nullify the debt ceiling "false hope" and noted that nothing in the Constitution enabled the President to "usurp legislative power" with regards to the debt. Tribe said that since Congress has means other than borrowing to pay the federal debt (including raising taxes, coining money, and selling federal assets), the argument that the President could seize the power to borrow could be extended to give the President the ability to seize those powers as well.[94]
Garrett Epps counter-argued that the President would not be usurping Congressional power by invoking Section 4 to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional, because the debt ceiling exceeds Congressional authority. He called it legislative "double-counting," as paraphrased in The New Republic, "because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations."[95] In other words, given Congress has appropriated money via federal programs, the Executive is obligated to enact and, therefore, fund them, but the debt ceiling's limit on debt prevents the executive from carrying out the instructions given by Congress, on the constitutional authority to set appropriations; essentially, to obey the statutory debt ceiling would require usurping congress' constitutional powers, and hence the statute must be unconstitutional.
Former President Bill Clinton endorsed this counter-argument, saying he would eliminate the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment. He called it "crazy" that Congress first appropriates funds and then gets a second vote on whether to pay.[96]
Matthew Zeitlin added to the counter-argument that, were Section 4 invoked, members of Congress would not have standing to sue the President for allegedly usurping congressional authority, even if they were willing to do so; and those likely to have standing would be people "designed to elicit zero public sympathy: those who purchased credit default swaps which would pay off in the event of government default."[95] Matthew Steinglass argued that, because it would come down to the Supreme Court, the Court would not vote in favor of anyone who could and would sue: it would rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional. This is because, for the Court to rule to uphold the debt ceiling, it would, in effect, be voting for the United States to default, with the consequences that would entail; and, Steinglass argues, the Court would not do that.[97]
Michael Stern, Senior Counsel to the US House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004, stated that Garrett Epps "had adopted an overly broad interpretation of the Public Debt Clause and that this interpretation, even if accepted, could not justify invalidating the debt limit" because "the President's duty to safeguard the national debt no more enables him to assume Congress's power of the purse than it would enable him to assume the judicial power when (in his opinion) the Supreme Court acts in an unconstitutional manner."[98]
Rob Natelson, former Constitutional Law Professor at University of Montana, argued that "this is not some issue in the disputed boundaries between legislative and executive power." He continued, "That's why the Constitution itself (Article I, Section 8, Clause 2) gives only Congress, not the President, the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States." In another argument, Natelson stated that Bruce Bartlett "deftly omits a crucial part of the quote from the Fourteenth Amendment. It actually says, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW ... shall not be questioned.' In other words, Congress has to approve the debt for it not to be questioned. And note that this language refers to existing debt, not to creating new debt. He also neglects to mention that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically grants to Congress, not to the President, authority to enforce the amendment."[90]
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[89] implied that the debt ceiling may violate the Constitution; however George Madison, General Counsel to the US Treasury, wrote that "Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit" (but nor did Madison say that Geithner had argued against the proposition either), and that "the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress." He stated that "Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress."[99]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U...ossible_methods_of_bypassing_the_debt_ceiling
[edit] Fourteenth Amendment
During the debate, some scholars, Democratic lawmakers,[76][77][78] and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[89] suggested that the President could declare that the debt ceiling violates the Constitution and issue an Executive Order to direct the Treasury to issue more debt.[79] They point to Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, that states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Others rebutted this argument by pointing to Section 8 of Article 1 and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state that Congress has the power of the purse and the authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.[90]
Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . .To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Amendment XIV, 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. Amendment XIV, Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Arguments Jack Balkin, looking into the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment, argued that Section 4 was adopted to guard against politically-determined default. Referencing the sponsor of the provision, Senator Benjamin Wade, Balkin argued that "the central rationale for Section Four ... was to remove threats of default on federal debts from partisan struggle." Balkin quotes Wade: "every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the varying majorities which may arise in Congress." According to Balkin, this reveals "an important structural principle. The threat of defaulting on government obligations is a powerful weapon, especially in a complex, interconnected world economy. Devoted partisans can use it to disrupt government, to roil ordinary politics, to undermine policies they do not like, even to seek political revenge. Section Four was placed in the Constitution to remove this weapon from ordinary politics."[91]
Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and columnist for The Fiscal Times, argued that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and that the President should disregard the debt limit.[92]
The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel argued that the President could use the public debt section of the Fourteenth Amendment to force the Treasury to continue paying its debts if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling was not reached.[93]
Laurence Tribe, professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, called the argument that the public debt clause can nullify the debt ceiling "false hope" and noted that nothing in the Constitution enabled the President to "usurp legislative power" with regards to the debt. Tribe said that since Congress has means other than borrowing to pay the federal debt (including raising taxes, coining money, and selling federal assets), the argument that the President could seize the power to borrow could be extended to give the President the ability to seize those powers as well.[94]
Garrett Epps counter-argued that the President would not be usurping Congressional power by invoking Section 4 to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional, because the debt ceiling exceeds Congressional authority. He called it legislative "double-counting," as paraphrased in The New Republic, "because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations."[95] In other words, given Congress has appropriated money via federal programs, the Executive is obligated to enact and, therefore, fund them, but the debt ceiling's limit on debt prevents the executive from carrying out the instructions given by Congress, on the constitutional authority to set appropriations; essentially, to obey the statutory debt ceiling would require usurping congress' constitutional powers, and hence the statute must be unconstitutional.
Former President Bill Clinton endorsed this counter-argument, saying he would eliminate the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment. He called it "crazy" that Congress first appropriates funds and then gets a second vote on whether to pay.[96]
Matthew Zeitlin added to the counter-argument that, were Section 4 invoked, members of Congress would not have standing to sue the President for allegedly usurping congressional authority, even if they were willing to do so; and those likely to have standing would be people "designed to elicit zero public sympathy: those who purchased credit default swaps which would pay off in the event of government default."[95] Matthew Steinglass argued that, because it would come down to the Supreme Court, the Court would not vote in favor of anyone who could and would sue: it would rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional. This is because, for the Court to rule to uphold the debt ceiling, it would, in effect, be voting for the United States to default, with the consequences that would entail; and, Steinglass argues, the Court would not do that.[97]
Michael Stern, Senior Counsel to the US House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004, stated that Garrett Epps "had adopted an overly broad interpretation of the Public Debt Clause and that this interpretation, even if accepted, could not justify invalidating the debt limit" because "the President's duty to safeguard the national debt no more enables him to assume Congress's power of the purse than it would enable him to assume the judicial power when (in his opinion) the Supreme Court acts in an unconstitutional manner."[98]
Rob Natelson, former Constitutional Law Professor at University of Montana, argued that "this is not some issue in the disputed boundaries between legislative and executive power." He continued, "That's why the Constitution itself (Article I, Section 8, Clause 2) gives only Congress, not the President, the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States." In another argument, Natelson stated that Bruce Bartlett "deftly omits a crucial part of the quote from the Fourteenth Amendment. It actually says, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW ... shall not be questioned.' In other words, Congress has to approve the debt for it not to be questioned. And note that this language refers to existing debt, not to creating new debt. He also neglects to mention that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically grants to Congress, not to the President, authority to enforce the amendment."[90]
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[89] implied that the debt ceiling may violate the Constitution; however George Madison, General Counsel to the US Treasury, wrote that "Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit" (but nor did Madison say that Geithner had argued against the proposition either), and that "the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress." He stated that "Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress."[99]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U...ossible_methods_of_bypassing_the_debt_ceiling
beretta304
Rookie
- Banned
- #59
Do you know what Obama will do if you try?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4MRmEPNUxY&feature=player_detailpage]Inner Circle - Bad Boys - YouTube[/ame]
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #60
personal insult for me doesnt make facts go away
Similar threads
- Replies
- 80
- Views
- 969
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 191
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 249
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 26
- Replies
- 190
- Views
- 701
- Replies
- 72
- Views
- 286
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8036
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-