It is time to invoke the 14th Amendment

[The Rabbi]

The braying jackass responds ^ to the best of his very limited ability.

But it's no laughing matter.

The President had best think that kind of thing over very carefully before fucking with the Constitution.

Your advice, Chrissy, is idiotic and quite baseless.

One can hope that even this imbecile President is smarter than that.

Hardly baseless or idiotic.

And as I said, it's for the courts to decide.

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.

 

[Swagger]

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

But you only want to enforce the parts that you like.

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the Constitution.

Your interpretation of what it permits is not.

That's for the courts to decide.

That's how our system works.

Surely going against what your supposedly sacrosanct Constitution stipulates, however amended, is a clear breach of contract? That is essentially what the Constitution is, isn't it? A contract between the people and their government.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, for I am a mere outsider.

 

[Chris]

Sen. Tom Harkin told reporters on a conference call Thursday afternoon that he believes legal precedent and non-action by Congress could culminate to provide an avenue by which President Barack Obama could act alone to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by executive order.

“I believe that the 14th Amendment and the finding in Perry v. US gives him the authority to do that,” Harkin said, noting that such an outcome would depend on whether or not Congress took action.

“I think he would need to wait until the last minute — like maybe next Monday or Tuesday — but he could [at that point] say, ‘Well, Congress has not acted and since we cannot go into default, I’m issuing an executive order to raise the debt.’ I think most members of Congress would probably applaud that … most members of Congress don’t like voting on raising the debt ceiling anyway, so they’d probably like that they wouldn’t have to vote on it.”

Afterward, Harkin said, Congress could move forward with discussions on the national debt and deficit. He also realizes that such an outcome would not be universally popular.

“I think the tea party people would probably go kinda nuts, but that’s their stock in trade anyway,” he said.

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.”

While the idea of using a SCOTUS decision from 1935 and a Constitutional Amendment penned in 1868 may seem a bit radical, Harkin is hardly the only person to suggest it as a remedy to the ongoing national stalemate over the debt-ceiling. Roughly 10 days ago, President Bill Clinton said he would use the option “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”

“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said. “[Y]ou can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.’”

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

Harkin is a schmuck. And he's wrong.

So much for your appeal to very doubtful "authority."

Your opinion doesn't matter.

The SCOTUS is the only opinion that matters, and they have already given a broader interpretation.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[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.”

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

But you only want to enforce the parts that you like.

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the Constitution.

Your interpretation of what it permits is not.

That's for the courts to decide.

That's how our system works.

Well, he had better trot his ass into court and find out if he can do this. Because if he does it, and the courts find he was wrong, he can kiss his chance at re-election goodbye.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sen. Tom Harkin told reporters on a conference call Thursday afternoon that he believes legal precedent and non-action by Congress could culminate to provide an avenue by which President Barack Obama could act alone to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by executive order.

“I believe that the 14th Amendment and the finding in Perry v. US gives him the authority to do that,” Harkin said, noting that such an outcome would depend on whether or not Congress took action.

“I think he would need to wait until the last minute — like maybe next Monday or Tuesday — but he could [at that point] say, ‘Well, Congress has not acted and since we cannot go into default, I’m issuing an executive order to raise the debt.’ I think most members of Congress would probably applaud that … most members of Congress don’t like voting on raising the debt ceiling anyway, so they’d probably like that they wouldn’t have to vote on it.”

Afterward, Harkin said, Congress could move forward with discussions on the national debt and deficit. He also realizes that such an outcome would not be universally popular.

“I think the tea party people would probably go kinda nuts, but that’s their stock in trade anyway,” he said.

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.”

While the idea of using a SCOTUS decision from 1935 and a Constitutional Amendment penned in 1868 may seem a bit radical, Harkin is hardly the only person to suggest it as a remedy to the ongoing national stalemate over the debt-ceiling. Roughly 10 days ago, President Bill Clinton said he would use the option “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”

“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said. “[Y]ou can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.’”

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

Harkin is a schmuck. And he's wrong.

So much for your appeal to very doubtful "authority."

Your opinion doesn't matter.

The SCOTUS is the only opinion that matters, and they have already given a broader interpretation.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

Your opinion doesn't matter either. Neither does Harkin's. So why do you continue to post?
There is no authority for the president to raise the debt limit. He is not authorized to borrow money on behalf of the US and any money borrowed under that authority should not be paid back.

 

[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.”

 

[The Rabbi]

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.”

None of which translates into authority for the president to borrow money on behalf of the U.S.
Thanks for playing.

 

[Itsthejobsstupi]

The next short paragraph at the bottom of the 14th Amendment states that Congress shall have the power to enforce the amendment. Our Founding Fathers never thought that Congress itself would take leave of their minds and play chicken with the future of the American people. The Constitution was conceived by geniuses, but it is being administered by pompous, arrogant idiots.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

......"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.

 

[Liability]

Sen. Tom Harkin told reporters on a conference call Thursday afternoon that he believes legal precedent and non-action by Congress could culminate to provide an avenue by which President Barack Obama could act alone to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by executive order.

“I believe that the 14th Amendment and the finding in Perry v. US gives him the authority to do that,” Harkin said, noting that such an outcome would depend on whether or not Congress took action.

“I think he would need to wait until the last minute — like maybe next Monday or Tuesday — but he could [at that point] say, ‘Well, Congress has not acted and since we cannot go into default, I’m issuing an executive order to raise the debt.’ I think most members of Congress would probably applaud that … most members of Congress don’t like voting on raising the debt ceiling anyway, so they’d probably like that they wouldn’t have to vote on it.”

Afterward, Harkin said, Congress could move forward with discussions on the national debt and deficit. He also realizes that such an outcome would not be universally popular.

“I think the tea party people would probably go kinda nuts, but that’s their stock in trade anyway,” he said.

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.”

While the idea of using a SCOTUS decision from 1935 and a Constitutional Amendment penned in 1868 may seem a bit radical, Harkin is hardly the only person to suggest it as a remedy to the ongoing national stalemate over the debt-ceiling. Roughly 10 days ago, President Bill Clinton said he would use the option “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me.”

“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said. “[Y]ou can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.’”

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

Harkin is a schmuck. And he's wrong.

So much for your appeal to very doubtful "authority."

Your opinion doesn't matter.

The SCOTUS is the only opinion that matters, and they have already given a broader interpretation.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

My opinion matters exactly as much as yours, douche nozzle.

The SCOTUS's opinion is absolutely NOT the only opinion that matters.

You deliberately refuse to acknowledge that Congress might have its own say.

And YOUR read on Perry doesn't survive scrutiny, either, ya silly little dick head.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I dont support it and none of my friends do either . To me this is what a dictator does not the president of the USA

No, the president does what's right for the people.

And this is definitely right.

And dictators aren't elected.

Another civics lesson.

Most dictators were elected child.

And crushing the country under more debt is not right, not by any honest consideraton.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

But you only want to enforce the parts that you like.

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the Constitution.

Your interpretation of what it permits is not.

That's for the courts to decide.

That's how our system works.

Bullshit.

We have a system of checks and balances to prevent any Pres from doing this.

fucking tyrants

 

[Seawytch]

With the inmates currently running the asylum, the President may be left with no other choice than to invoke the 14th Amendment. Of course we can already see how the crazies will paint such an action...

 

[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.”

http://iowaindependent.com/59152/harkin-obama-could-raise-debt-ceiling-by-executive-order

 

[Two Thumbs]

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the Constitution.

Your interpretation of what it permits is not.

That's for the courts to decide.

That's how our system works.

Surely going against what your supposedly sacrosanct Constitution stipulates, however amended, is a clear breach of contract? That is essentially what the Constitution is, isn't it? A contract between the people and their government.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, for I am a mere outsider.

No it's not a contact, or exactly sacrosanct.

The Amendments [27 of them] are allowed, and occur as time passes and the country changes. The process of amendments is increcibly long. It must have 2/3 vote in the House and Senate, then each state has to ratifiy it.

 

[Liability]

With the inmates currently running the asylum, the President may be left with no other choice than to invoke the 14th Amendment. Of course we can already see how the crazies will paint such an action...

The inmates running the asylum would include the idiot President and jack-offs like Sen. Reid who is threatening, now, to shut down the government. (Look at the current Drudge lead headline!

"ON THE BRINK
REID VOWS GRIDLOCK"

(Clearly, such threats are only "bad" when made by "those" dirty Republicans.)

If this stupid-asshole President heeds the "call" of mindless power-hungry and power-grabbing liberal Democratics, then the result SHOULD be an immediate impeachment resolution.

 

[Sallow]

The braying jackass responds ^ to the best of his very limited ability.

But it's no laughing matter.

The President had best think that kind of thing over very carefully before fucking with the Constitution.

Your advice, Chrissy, is idiotic and quite baseless.

One can hope that even this imbecile President is smarter than that.

Hardly baseless or idiotic.

And as I said, it's for the courts to decide.

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.

 

[Liability]

Hardly baseless or idiotic.

And as I said, it's for the courts to decide.

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.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Why the fear of using the amendment? Let's hope it doesn't come to this, because it will tax more resources - but if it does - there is a process and I have faith in it.