Has The House Violated The 14th Amendment?

[jillian]

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 Fourteenth Amendment is tyrannical...

I've been calling it such for nearly a decade now.

The Fourteenth Amendment creates a slippery slope in which violates the Bill of Rights, or for the idiots our first 10 amendments.

i'm not sure how one would think that a constitutional amendment violates the constitution. that's not possible, regardless of whether you dislike it or not.

 

[jillian]

Yeah the annual $1T+ deficit is not the problem.

that's what your guy cheney said. *shrug*

 

[Mr.Nick]

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 Fourteenth Amendment is tyrannical...

I've been calling it such for nearly a decade now.

The Fourteenth Amendment creates a slippery slope in which violates the Bill of Rights, or for the idiots our first 10 amendments.

i'm not sure how one would think that a constitutional amendment violates the constitution. that's not possible, regardless of whether you dislike it or not.

Oh it does..

What do you know about the equal protection clause?

That POS may as well justify anarchy..

You have the right to be happy no? what if my free speech or my first Amendment right makes you unhappy?

Oh and the liberals have used the Fourteenth to challenge the Bill of Rights numerous times.

"Hate speech" bans are nothing more than a product of the Fourteenth Amendment .

 

[Mr.Nick]

I want the 14th repealed now...

Its an invitation to tyranny, and it justifies pretty much any authoritarian act.

 

[Trajan]

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?

I'd say thats a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggge stretch.

 

[jillian]

The Fourteenth Amendment is tyrannical...

I've been calling it such for nearly a decade now.

The Fourteenth Amendment creates a slippery slope in which violates the Bill of Rights, or for the idiots our first 10 amendments.

i'm not sure how one would think that a constitutional amendment violates the constitution. that's not possible, regardless of whether you dislike it or not.

Oh it does..

What do you know about the equal protection clause?

That POS may as well justify anarchy..

You have the right to be happy no? what if my free speech or my first Amendment right makes you unhappy?

Oh and the liberals have used the Fourteenth to challenge the Bill of Rights numerous times.

"Hate speech" bans are nothing more than a product of the Fourteenth Amendment .

it can't if it's part of the constitution, it is by definition constitutional.

how do you see it justifying anarchy?

what do i know about the equal protection clause? only what the caselaw tells us.

they'e used the 14th to challenge the bill of rights?

and no... there is no constitutional right to happiness.

do explain your link between hate speech and the 14th amendment. i'm intrigued. you are aware, yes, that it is not the "speech" that is the issue. it's "speech" mixed with action... you know, like calling someone "faggot" as you're beating the piss out of them. or calling someone "******" as you're dragging them from the back of your truck.

you have no right not to be offended.

you do have the right to be protected from injury just because somone is a disgusting racist or homophobic or anti-semitic or islamophobic pig.

 

[Mr.Nick]

i'm not sure how one would think that a constitutional amendment violates the constitution. that's not possible, regardless of whether you dislike it or not.

Oh it does..

What do you know about the equal protection clause?

That POS may as well justify anarchy..

You have the right to be happy no? what if my free speech or my first Amendment right makes you unhappy?

Oh and the liberals have used the Fourteenth to challenge the Bill of Rights numerous times.

"Hate speech" bans are nothing more than a product of the Fourteenth Amendment .

it can't if it's part of the constitution, it is by definition constitutional.

how do you see it justifying anarchy?

what do i know about the equal protection clause? only what the caselaw tells us.

they'e used the 14th to challenge the bill of rights?

and no... there is no constitutional right to happiness.

do explain your link between hate speech and the 14th amendment. i'm intrigued. you are aware, yes, that it is not the "speech" that is the issue. it's "speech" mixed with action... you know, like calling someone "faggot" as you're beating the piss out of them. or calling someone "******" as you're dragging them from the back of your truck.

you have no right not to be offended.

you do have the right to be protected from injury just because somone is a disgusting racist or homophobic or anti-semitic or islamophobic pig.

I love your progressive logic .....

Why don't you just read circuit cases?

Besides, I'm not the one who claimed you had the right to happiness - your party made that up.

Its bullshit like "separation of church and state."

Progressives just cant read, and those that can make shit up...

 

[jillian]

Oh it does..

What do you know about the equal protection clause?

That POS may as well justify anarchy..

You have the right to be happy no? what if my free speech or my first Amendment right makes you unhappy?

Oh and the liberals have used the Fourteenth to challenge the Bill of Rights numerous times.

"Hate speech" bans are nothing more than a product of the Fourteenth Amendment .

it can't if it's part of the constitution, it is by definition constitutional.

how do you see it justifying anarchy?

what do i know about the equal protection clause? only what the caselaw tells us.

they'e used the 14th to challenge the bill of rights?

and no... there is no constitutional right to happiness.

do explain your link between hate speech and the 14th amendment. i'm intrigued. you are aware, yes, that it is not the "speech" that is the issue. it's "speech" mixed with action... you know, like calling someone "faggot" as you're beating the piss out of them. or calling someone "******" as you're dragging them from the back of your truck.

you have no right not to be offended.

you do have the right to be protected from injury just because somone is a disgusting racist or homophobic or anti-semitic or islamophobic pig.

I love your progressive logic .....

Why don't you just read circuit cases?

Besides, I'm not the one who claimed you had the right to happiness - your party made that up.

Its bullshit like "separation of church and state."

Progressives just cant read, and those that can make shit up...

well, it was almost an interesting discussion.

bummer...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Is that anything like the Senate passing bills they know are unpassable in the House?

How could it possibly rise to the level of violating a part of the Constitution that has not been violated?

i'm not sure your question is saying what you want it to.

do i think it's all theatre of the absurd? of course, i do. but then again there's never been this kind of insanity before.

It is asking exactly what I wanted it to say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one has demonstrated how the Republicans are calling in to question the debts incurred to pursue the Civil war.

Nor is anyone in congress suggesting any current debt authorized by congress be ignored.

What congress is doing is saying no more NEW debt is authorized. The old debts are still legit, and the treasury can still pay those bills out of current receipts. Folks who owe taxes still have to pay them, and all payments these days go through banks and are transmitted electronically to the Federal Reserve, the treasury's authorized agent for making payments on the debts.


We are at the point now where we have maxed out the credit card. We still have income, we still have the capability to pay our bills as they come in. We just can't buy anything new on the credit card. Failure to charge any new bills is not the same as failure to pay the old ones.

baruch, the debt ceiling is about money we've already spent

No it is not, it is about how much money we can borrow.

 

[Mr.Nick]

it can't if it's part of the constitution, it is by definition constitutional.

how do you see it justifying anarchy?

what do i know about the equal protection clause? only what the caselaw tells us.

they'e used the 14th to challenge the bill of rights?

and no... there is no constitutional right to happiness.

do explain your link between hate speech and the 14th amendment. i'm intrigued. you are aware, yes, that it is not the "speech" that is the issue. it's "speech" mixed with action... you know, like calling someone "faggot" as you're beating the piss out of them. or calling someone "******" as you're dragging them from the back of your truck.

you have no right not to be offended.

you do have the right to be protected from injury just because somone is a disgusting racist or homophobic or anti-semitic or islamophobic pig.

I love your progressive logic .....

Why don't you just read circuit cases?

Besides, I'm not the one who claimed you had the right to happiness - your party made that up.

Its bullshit like "separation of church and state."

Progressives just cant read, and those that can make shit up...

well, it was almost an interesting discussion.

bummer...

I told you to go to the courts......

I have read many cases..

I can tell you that the Fourteenth contradicts the Bill of Rights tho.

I've seen parties try to use the Fourteenth in an attempt to ban the Second Amendment.

No judge would ever hear such nonsense, but the attempt and intent was there.

A bad mothers child gets shot and she all of a sudden cares about her child.... The complaint? "ban guns."

Of course the second individuals argue for the aborted children the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't exist.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

i expected better from an attorney. Perhaps that was my mistake.

 

[GWV5903]

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?

Not at all, next excuse....

 

[Mr.Nick]

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?

i expected better from an attorney. Perhaps that was my mistake.

Most of the lawyers are arrogant progressives.

Hell, most politicians are lawyers.

We get snakes on the plane and everyone gets freaked out?

People elect snakes and they're disappointed when they've been deceived.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

i expected better from an attorney. Perhaps that was my mistake.

She's not an attorney. That ought to be obvious.

 

[Valerie]

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?

i expected better from an attorney. Perhaps that was my mistake.

She's not an attorney. That ought to be obvious.

Just goes to show you how wrong you can be since she is indeed a lawyer.





And umm thanks for the rep phony Rabbi!

Hi, you have received -90 reputation points from The Rabbi.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
The most intelligent thing you\'ve ever posted.

Regards,
The Rabbi

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

My God cupcake, who's questioning the validity of the debt?

WTF is wrong with you? Do you lie awake at night dreaming up stupid shit to say, or, does it just flow naturally from that cavern that is your head?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

i expected better from an attorney. Perhaps that was my mistake.

She's not an attorney. That ought to be obvious.

Just goes to show you how wrong you can be since she is indeed a lawyer.





And umm thanks for the rep phony Rabbi!

Hi, you have received -90 reputation points from The Rabbi.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
The most intelligent thing you\'ve ever posted.

Regards,
The Rabbi

Note: This is an automated message.

If she is a lawyer, which I don't believe for a second, she must be one of the worst on the planet. I wouldn't hire her to do my will.

 

[Valerie]

She's not an attorney. That ought to be obvious.

Just goes to show you how wrong you can be since she is indeed a lawyer.





And umm thanks for the rep phony Rabbi!

Hi, you have received -90 reputation points from The Rabbi.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
The most intelligent thing you\'ve ever posted.

Regards,
The Rabbi

Note: This is an automated message.

If she is a lawyer, which I don't believe for a second, she must be one of the worst on the planet. I wouldn't hire her to do my will.

I'm sure your opinion means so much!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Just goes to show you how wrong you can be since she is indeed a lawyer.





And umm thanks for the rep phony Rabbi!

If she is a lawyer, which I don't believe for a second, she must be one of the worst on the planet. I wouldn't hire her to do my will.

I'm sure your opinion means so much!

When I want your opinion honey, I'll let you know.... now run along and make yourself useful, fetch us some coffee or something.