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.
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
Nope.......
They have passed three bills.
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
Again, SCOTUS has ruled that Congress has the authority to question the validity and to repudiate the debt if they so choose:
"Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, dissenting.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND, Mr. Justice BUTLER, and I conclude that, if given effect, the enactments here challenged will bring about confiscation of property rights and repudiation of national obligations. Acquiescence in the decisions just announced is impossible; the circumstances demand statement of our views. 'To let oneself slide down the easy slope offered by the course of events and to dull one's mind against the extent of the danger, ... that is precisely to fail in one's obligation of responsibility.'
Just men regard repudiation and spoliation of citizens by their sovereign with abhorrence; but we are asked to affirm that the Constitution has granted power to accomplish both. No definite delegation of such a power exists; and we cannot believe the farseeing framers, who labored with hope of establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty, intended that the expected government should have authority to annihilate its own obligations and destroy the very rights which they were endeavoring to protect. Not only is there no permission for such actions; they are [316-Continued.]"
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO., 294 U.S. 240 (1935)
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
.
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
Nope.......
They have passed three bills.
linking it to things that are not passable..
think more instead of posting what you wish were true.
the FACT is that by dragging their butts and holding the country hostage to the rightwingnut agenda, they have very much undermined us financially. The question is, does it rise to the level of a constitutional violation?
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
Again, SCOTUS has ruled that Congress has the authority to question the validity and to repudiate the debt if they so choose:
"Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, dissenting.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND, Mr. Justice BUTLER, and I conclude that, if given effect, the enactments here challenged will bring about confiscation of property rights and repudiation of national obligations. Acquiescence in the decisions just announced is impossible; the circumstances demand statement of our views. 'To let oneself slide down the easy slope offered by the course of events and to dull one's mind against the extent of the danger, ... that is precisely to fail in one's obligation of responsibility.'
Just men regard repudiation and spoliation of citizens by their sovereign with abhorrence; but we are asked to affirm that the Constitution has granted power to accomplish both. No definite delegation of such a power exists; and we cannot believe the farseeing framers, who labored with hope of establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty, intended that the expected government should have authority to annihilate its own obligations and destroy the very rights which they were endeavoring to protect. Not only is there no permission for such actions; they are [316-Continued.]"
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO., 294 U.S. 240 (1935)
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
.
one more time... those are dissents and not the ruling of the court.
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
Jillian last year the democrats didn't even have a budget, do you really want to go there?
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
Jillian last year the democrats didn't even have a budget, do you really want to go there?
The current discussions........
Democrats trying to go with business as usual and not produce a budget. AGAIN
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
Jillian last year the democrats didn't even have a budget, do you really want to go there?
Jillian last year the democrats didn't even have a budget, do you really want to go there?
The current discussions........
Democrats trying to go with business as usual and not produce a budget. AGAIN
nice talking point. however, non sequitur. the debt ceiling issue has nothing to do with passing a budget.
once again...
The rightwingnut threads on the debt ceiling have made me wonder... the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in stating that "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 insuurection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Isn't what the House is doing, in undermining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, a violation of that provision?
Again, SCOTUS has ruled that Congress has the authority to question the validity and to repudiate the debt if they so choose:
"Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, dissenting.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND, Mr. Justice BUTLER, and I conclude that, if given effect, the enactments here challenged will bring about confiscation of property rights and repudiation of national obligations. Acquiescence in the decisions just announced is impossible; the circumstances demand statement of our views. 'To let oneself slide down the easy slope offered by the course of events and to dull one's mind against the extent of the danger, ... that is precisely to fail in one's obligation of responsibility.'
Just men regard repudiation and spoliation of citizens by their sovereign with abhorrence; but we are asked to affirm that the Constitution has granted power to accomplish both. No definite delegation of such a power exists; and we cannot believe the farseeing framers, who labored with hope of establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty, intended that the expected government should have authority to annihilate its own obligations and destroy the very rights which they were endeavoring to protect. Not only is there no permission for such actions; they are [316-Continued.]"
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO., 294 U.S. 240 (1935)
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
.
one more time... those are dissents and not the ruling of the court.
Jillian last year the democrats didn't even have a budget, do you really want to go there?
The current discussions........
Democrats trying to go with business as usual and not produce a budget. AGAIN
nice talking point. however, non sequitur. the debt ceiling issue has nothing to do with passing a budget.
once again...
Again, SCOTUS has ruled that Congress has the authority to question the validity and to repudiate the debt if they so choose:
"Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, dissenting.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND, Mr. Justice BUTLER, and I conclude that, if given effect, the enactments here challenged will bring about confiscation of property rights and repudiation of national obligations. Acquiescence in the decisions just announced is impossible; the circumstances demand statement of our views. 'To let oneself slide down the easy slope offered by the course of events and to dull one's mind against the extent of the danger, ... that is precisely to fail in one's obligation of responsibility.'
Just men regard repudiation and spoliation of citizens by their sovereign with abhorrence; but we are asked to affirm that the Constitution has granted power to accomplish both. No definite delegation of such a power exists; and we cannot believe the farseeing framers, who labored with hope of establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty, intended that the expected government should have authority to annihilate its own obligations and destroy the very rights which they were endeavoring to protect. Not only is there no permission for such actions; they are [316-Continued.]"
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO., 294 U.S. 240 (1935)
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
.
one more time... those are dissents and not the ruling of the court.
OH I see this case was about Roosevelts gold confiscation.
You do realize that is the Superme court had been doing it's job and protecting individuals rights the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 would and should have been ruled unconstitutional and repealed.
