Has The House Violated The 14th Amendment?

[Si modo]

Who knew that I am a hostage.

Bizarre rhetoric.

 

[The 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.

I doubt she's competent enough for that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Her "understanding" of the Constitution is Obama-like

 

[Baruch Menachem]

one last parthian shot. NO one is questioning any part of the debt. The issue is becoming if we can pay it.

We are moving to the point of the guy who has maxed out every single credit card and is working at burgerworld. The bills come in, there is no question the money is owed. the question has become how do we get one more drop of blood from that stone?

 

[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?

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?

The 14th Amendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out
July 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — A few days ago, former President Bill Clinton identified a constitutional escape hatch should President Obama and Congress fail to come to terms on a deficit reduction plan before the government hits its borrowing ceiling.

He pointed to an obscure provision in the 14th Amendment, saying he would unilaterally invoke it “without hesitation” to raise the debt ceiling, “and force the courts to stop me.”

On Friday, Mr. Obama rejected the idea, though not in categorical terms.

“I have talked to my lawyers,” Mr. Obama said. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html

 

[Valerie]

If Debt Ceiling Pact Is Voted Down, How About Trillion-Dollar Coins Idea?

If Congress fails to pass the debt-ceiling bill, what then? Is there anything left in President Obama's bag of tricks, that is, beyond the 14th Amendment lever which he has indicated he won't use?

One of the more fascinating possibilities would involve the president ordering the minting of two platinum coins, each valued at one trillion dollars, and then depositing them in the U.S. Treasury so that checks could be written against them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... he has fought here. He simply doesn't have the votes.

KRUGMAN: No, he doesn't. He has — he has options. There are — there are — I'm aware of at least four possible legal routes to just regarding the debt ceiling...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're talking about the 14th Amendment.

KRUGMAN: The 14th Amendment, Article I, the platinum coin. Do people know about the platinum coin issue?

(CROSSTALK)

KRUGMAN: You can issue — it appears to be legally possible to...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That are worth a trillion dollars each?

KRUGMAN: ... to print — to mint a $2 trillion platinum coin, which is ridiculous, but the whole debate is ridiculous, right? If you've got somebody who's holding the American economy hostage and trying to extort policy concessions that they could never actually pass through Congress and that they could never get past the voters, you go for whatever you can do to stop it. But he won't do that.

 

[Valerie]

The House of Representatives will vote first on a bill to raise the government's debt limit, possibly in the evening on Monday, a House Republican aide said.

If it passes, that would leave the Senate to then sign off on the measure and send it to President Barack Obama to sign it into law.

Representative Tom Cole, one of the vote counters for House Republicans, told reporters he expects the measure to pass the House.

"I expect us to be able to move this with a very strong vote. We may need a few votes from the other side," Cole said.

House eyes Monday vote on debt bill: aide | Reuters

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Well, FDR had threatened to abolish the Supreme Court.

In order to avoid a Constitutional Crisis the SCOTUS caved in.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Well, FDR had threatened to abolish the Supreme Court.

In order to avoid a Constitutional Crisis the SCOTUS caved in.

.

He may have tried it but his ass would have been hanged for treason.