It is time to invoke the 14th Amendment

[Chris]

A heavy handed but totally empty rejoinder.

The authority to authorize the spending of money is granted exclusively to Congress. The Constitution is not even mildly unclear about that.

But this in not about spending money.

This is about defaulting government bonds.

And the Supreme Court has already ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

So Congress has no power to send us into default according to the Supreme Court.

Except for the fact that a default would not be voiding the debts, merely not paying them. They would resume payments after the debt limit was raised.

Sorry, I disagree.

"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."

 

[hortysir]

The 14th Amendment was one of the nation’s Reconstruction Amendments, and contains the due process and equal protection clauses. Section 4 of the amendment, however, deals with payment of national debt — specifically the payment of Union debts following the Civil War and not Confederate ones, although the document contains language which does not limit its boundaries to only that circumstance. It states “the validity of the U.S. public debt shall not be questioned.”

And, in deciding the 1935 case Perry v. United States, Chief Justice Charles Evans wrote that the “language indicates a broader connotation” than simply the debt conflict that followed the Civil War. Overall the high court ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

Harkin: Obama could raise debt ceiling by executive order | Iowa Independent

Repeating it doesn't give the POTUS authority to borrow money.

Maybe you can use that right-click to paste where the Constitution gives him that power

 

[Liability]

But this in not about spending money.

This is about defaulting government bonds.

And the Supreme Court has already ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

So Congress has no power to send us into default according to the Supreme Court.

Except for the fact that a default would not be voiding the debts, merely not paying them. They would resume payments after the debt limit was raised.

Sorry, I disagree.

"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."

A deliberate side-step.

FIRST there is enough money coming in to pay ALL such 'debts" as they become due.

Secondly, even if they don't get honored at that time (which would be a piss-poor political decision by the dishonorable President) that is not the same thing (as was pointed out to you) as disavowing the debts.

 

[Chris]

The 14th Amendment was one of the nation’s Reconstruction Amendments, and contains the due process and equal protection clauses. Section 4 of the amendment, however, deals with payment of national debt — specifically the payment of Union debts following the Civil War and not Confederate ones, although the document contains language which does not limit its boundaries to only that circumstance. It states “the validity of the U.S. public debt shall not be questioned.”

And, in deciding the 1935 case Perry v. United States, Chief Justice Charles Evans wrote that the “language indicates a broader connotation” than simply the debt conflict that followed the Civil War. Overall the high court ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

Harkin: Obama could raise debt ceiling by executive order | Iowa Independent

Repeating it doesn't give the POTUS authority to borrow money.

Maybe you can use that right-click to paste where the Constitution gives him that power

The money is already borrowed.

Congress has already voted in the payments.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

But this in not about spending money.

This is about defaulting government bonds.

And the Supreme Court has already ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

So Congress has no power to send us into default according to the Supreme Court.

Except for the fact that a default would not be voiding the debts, merely not paying them. They would resume payments after the debt limit was raised.

Sorry, I disagree.

"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."

And the validity of the debt would not be questioned either. The debt would still be valid, and payments would be made later.

Nobody is saying a default would wipe away the debt. Just that it can't be paid without an increase in the debt limit.

 

[Chris]

Except for the fact that a default would not be voiding the debts, merely not paying them. They would resume payments after the debt limit was raised.

Sorry, I disagree.

"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."

A deliberate side-step.

FIRST there is enough money coming in to pay ALL such 'debts" as they become due.

Secondly, even if they don't get honored at that time (which would be a piss-poor political decision by the dishonorable President) that is not the same thing (as was pointed out to you) as disavowing the debts.

Now who is side stepping.

Congress has already voted that we spend the money, it is up to the President to make sure we don't default on the debts that Congress has already incurred.

 

[Liability]

Sorry, I disagree.

"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."

A deliberate side-step.

FIRST there is enough money coming in to pay ALL such 'debts" as they become due.

Secondly, even if they don't get honored at that time (which would be a piss-poor political decision by the dishonorable President) that is not the same thing (as was pointed out to you) as disavowing the debts.

Now who is side stepping.

You. Yet again.

Congress has already voted that we spend the money,

Not denied.

it is up to the President to make sure we don't default on the debts that Congress has already incurred.

So? He can do that without pretending that he has any authority to borrow anything or attempting to do so.

Pay the bonds and pay the interest payments. Pay all other outstanding DEBTS already incurred on such terms as were agreed-to, and do it when due.

None of that requires any additional borrowing or any increase in the "debt ceiling." None.

 

[The Rabbi]

......"pulling our their pocket constitutions.." That's funny as hell because most in congress wouldn't know it if it hit 'em in the ass.

Democratic Congressmen don't worry about the Constitution.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgh-q4t0kzM]‪Congressman says "I don't worry about the Constitution"‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

It is time to invoke the 14th Amendment

Why go through all the pretense?

Why doesn't Boiking just g'ead and raise the debt ceiling by authoritarian fiat and proclaim "I won"?

It's not really as though the left gives a hoot in hell about the Constitution to begin with.

 

[del]

I think the American people would support it.

wrong

 

[Full-Auto]

If the President "invokes" the 14th Amendment, such a dishonest and naked power grab ought to be "rewarded"

with an immediate impeachment.

When are you going to show that the payments can not be made late?

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, I disagree.

"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."

A deliberate side-step.

FIRST there is enough money coming in to pay ALL such 'debts" as they become due.

Secondly, even if they don't get honored at that time (which would be a piss-poor political decision by the dishonorable President) that is not the same thing (as was pointed out to you) as disavowing the debts.

Now who is side stepping.

Congress has already voted that we spend the money, it is up to the President to make sure we don't default on the debts that Congress has already incurred.

Delaying payment on a debt is not the same thing as voiding the debt.
You didn't do well in school, did you?

So we have seen no authority granted by the Constitution to the president to borrow money on behalf of the U.S.
We have seen that the Constitution explicitly gives that power to Congress exclusively.
We have seen that the 14th Amendment is not applicable to a default on bonds.

The OP is a total fail.

 

[martybegan]

The 14th Amendment was one of the nation’s Reconstruction Amendments, and contains the due process and equal protection clauses. Section 4 of the amendment, however, deals with payment of national debt — specifically the payment of Union debts following the Civil War and not Confederate ones, although the document contains language which does not limit its boundaries to only that circumstance. It states “the validity of the U.S. public debt shall not be questioned.”

And, in deciding the 1935 case Perry v. United States, Chief Justice Charles Evans wrote that the “language indicates a broader connotation” than simply the debt conflict that followed the Civil War. Overall the high court ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

Except they are not voiding the bond. They are simply stating there can be no more bonds. The government has sufficent income to cover its debt interest service. There is no possible interpretation that would allow the president to borrow more money.

 

[Sallow]

If he decided to suspend habeas corpus would you say the same thing?
There is no authority in the Constitution anywhere for the president to raise the debt limit. Period.

That's mainly because there is NO DEBT LIMIT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

A heavy handed but totally empty rejoinder.

The authority to authorize the spending of money is granted exclusively to Congress. The Constitution is not even mildly unclear about that.

Not entirely.

The President can still veto any bill passing over his desk.

And of course Congress can override that.

 

[Nic_Driver]

I hope Obama protects America against those who would do us harm and I hope he doesn't let America default on our obligations.

 

[Liability]

I hope Obama protects America against those who would do us harm and I hope he doesn't let America default on our obligations.

Yeah. I hope President Obama protects America against the irrational shit that would harm us. Therefore, I hope Obama protects us against his own prior actions, words and behavior by changing his foolish, petty, partisan and irrational little mind.

If there is nay default, that would be nothing but a partisan political CHOICE to be made by the reckless President. If it happens, that dope needs to be impeached.

 

[Ame®icano]

The 14th Amendment was one of the nation’s Reconstruction Amendments, and contains the due process and equal protection clauses. Section 4 of the amendment, however, deals with payment of national debt — specifically the payment of Union debts following the Civil War and not Confederate ones, although the document contains language which does not limit its boundaries to only that circumstance. It states “the validity of the U.S. public debt shall not be questioned.”

And, in deciding the 1935 case Perry v. United States, Chief Justice Charles Evans wrote that the “language indicates a broader connotation” than simply the debt conflict that followed the Civil War. Overall the high court ruled that voiding U.S. government bond “went beyond the congressional power.”

That's not what it states, bitch.

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.

It's very difficult for leftist to comprehend "authorized by law" part.

I know that Obama see the Constitution as a document of negative liberties and he hates every part of it, since its preventing him from achieving his childhood dream of becoming a dictator.

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

Congress has the power. Not President. Congress, bitch.