The 14th Amendment and the Constitutional End Run around the Debt Ceiling.

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's see who blinks first..

WASHINGTON -- Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment.

"This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "I don't think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I'll tell you that it's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'"

14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional

My position is that this is bullshit.

The executive branch cannot do this, they do not have the authority. Spending and borrowing has to be approved by Congress, the executive cannot unilaterally decide to keep borrowing in order to keep the government running. Being neither a (D) or an (R) I will oppose this no matter who tires it.

Will you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hypocrisy.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” Barack Obama, Senator. 2006.

In 2006, every single Democrat voted against raising the ceiling. Why now is it ok? Hmmm? What fundamental shift took place that it is now not a sign of failed leadership? For the record, I do not blame Obama - at least not just Obama. I blame every single fucking congresscritter.

Ditto.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They did agree to cuts ( Which in my book was nuts ). They didn't agree to the number that the Republicans asked for..and I seriously think that even if they met the number..it still wouldn't be enough.

The end game on this one is getting rid of Medicare and Social Security..along with the cuts.

They cut appox 30B. That's an insult when we're running a 2T dollar deficit and 14 T in the hole. We should be hacking 250 billion a year in cuts.

Gotta love it.

Closing loopholes, ending subsidies and getting rid of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy would close that hole mighty quickly.

And if you'd like a surplus in like three years? Cut military spending in half.

Would it? Even Obama has never claimed that ending the Bush tax cuts would bring in trillions of dollars a year. His biggest estimate is $1 trillion over 10 years. Do you honestly think that loopholes and subsidies amount to trillions of spending in a year?

 

[Sallow]

Dissect the 14th Amendment - Appropriately called the CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:

Section 1: Birth Right and Naturalization Clause (possibility the worst cause in the entire constitution), Privilege and Immunity Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.

Section 2: How the number of House Representative will be apportioned by population count. Requirements to be a resident of state and be at least 21 and what a Rep can be impeached for.

Section 3: Says no Congressman or elected official can engage in rebellion, insurrection or give aid to enemy (the reason Luis Gutierrez should be impeached, but I digress.,

Section 4: (Now we come to where the mental midget Shallow is trying to make a baseless point) - Validity of public debt, apportioned by congress, FOR SUPPRESSING AN INSURRECTON OR REBELLION shall not be questioned. All debts incurred by the US or States in aid of an insurrection or rebellion against the US shall be held illegal and void.

TRANSLATION: Only debts incurred to end an insurrection or rebellion against the US shall not be questioned. In no way shape or form are they talking about raising the debt ceiling to avoid the country going bankrupt due to reckless spending. Heck this section doesn't even include wars like WW I, Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. I think the only wars it MIGHT include in the War of 1812 (Britian was on our soil, however that war was WELL before the 14th amendment was even contemplated and made part of the constitution), the Civil War (made after this war), WW II (we were attacked at Pearl Harbor) and Afghanistan (we were attacked at World Trade Center and the Pentagon).

Trying to say this clause (which has NEVER be part of a legal action) is trying to say the constitution REQUIRES the debt ceiling to be raised due to reckless spending is beyond a clueless and ignorant argument!

Section 5: Give Congress power to enforce the 14th amendment!

In addition to the this amendment..which is pertinent..there is no mandate in the Constitution that allows for a debt ceiling. Congress must pay it's debts.

 

[Sallow]

Hypocrisy.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” Barack Obama, Senator. 2006.

In 2006, every single Democrat voted against raising the ceiling. Why now is it ok? Hmmm? What fundamental shift took place that it is now not a sign of failed leadership? For the record, I do not blame Obama - at least not just Obama. I blame every single fucking congresscritter.

I dunno.

Maybe it's because the rest of Congress voted 19 times to raise it..and authorized Bush to spend some 4 trillion dollars. Maybe they were really trying to make a point about a President who entered office with a surplus..and was about to leave it with a massive deficit.

In any case..it was the wrong thing, for Senator Obama, to do.

So once again the Left falls back to "well he did it so we can also" never mind that the debt is 10x that of the previous administrations which was extremely bad then its 10x worse now but don't let that stop you.

A majority of the debt was accrued over the Bush administration. Before that..Reagan spent money like a traitorous drunken sailor.

It's telling that Republicans always seem to impose austerity measures when they are out of power.

 

[Sallow]

They cut appox 30B. That's an insult when we're running a 2T dollar deficit and 14 T in the hole. We should be hacking 250 billion a year in cuts.

Gotta love it.

Closing loopholes, ending subsidies and getting rid of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy would close that hole mighty quickly.

And if you'd like a surplus in like three years? Cut military spending in half.

Would it? Even Obama has never claimed that ending the Bush tax cuts would bring in trillions of dollars a year. His biggest estimate is $1 trillion over 10 years. Do you honestly think that loopholes and subsidies amount to trillions of spending in a year?

Actually..today at the Press conference..President Obama said the Democrats identified 1 trillion dollars in cuts.

That's far more then the initial pass. I personally think it's insane to impose austerity measures during a fragile economic recovery..and I posted a thread sometime ago to illustrate how much government spends on the private sector.

In any case..it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gotta love it.

Closing loopholes, ending subsidies and getting rid of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy would close that hole mighty quickly.

And if you'd like a surplus in like three years? Cut military spending in half.

Would it? Even Obama has never claimed that ending the Bush tax cuts would bring in trillions of dollars a year. His biggest estimate is $1 trillion over 10 years. Do you honestly think that loopholes and subsidies amount to trillions of spending in a year?

Actually..today at the Press conference..President Obama said the Democrats identified 1 trillion dollars in cuts.

That's far more then the initial pass. I personally think it's insane to impose austerity measures during a fragile economic recovery..and I posted a thread sometime ago to illustrate how much government spends on the private sector.

In any case..it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

I missed that, but like I pointed out, when you are spending trillions a year a cut of 1 trillion over 10 years is chicken feed.

You think Greece should ignore the rest of the world and pass more spending bills? Isn't that what caused their fragile economy and their debt crisis? You were in finance, would you advise a client to spend more money in the midst of a personal economic meltdown?

If the Republicans stick to their guns and demand that we cut spending it will play out that we cut spending. Nothing will get through Congress without the approval of the Republicans this year, unlike the last two years when the Democrats could pass anything they wanted, except a budget.