Breaking: Obama To Address Nation Tonight. Will Bypass Congress & Invoke 14th Amendmt

[Rozman]

They shoved the dopey changey health care nonsense down our throats with the help of some shady closed door back room deals didn't they....I don't trust these slimy libs.

 

[Jarhead]

What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?

What on earth did the "57-state" faux pas have to do with the debt ceiling?

Nothing.

The 57th state faux pas was brought up in sarcasm when someone started to brag about Obama's in depth kinowledge of the consiutution. It was a funny response.

Iran Contra, however, was brought up in an effort to seriously argue the legiutimacy of Obama being a sole decider on something major.

Poor attempt at a diversion...AGAIN...Maggie.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of that section, or ANY section of the 14th, to the possibility of the President authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling without congress.

The "debt" obviously is larger than the "revenue" we currently have in the Treasury to continue to pay for EXISTING debt. Therefore, legally, in order to not default on that EXISTING debt, the ceiling must be raised. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "new" debt. Nothing, nada, zip.

It's as it you went over the credit limit on your credit card. You still have to pay those extra charges, but you would be cut off from charging anything further. That is ALL raising the debt "ceiling" does too.

i get all that. I guess I am taking the 14th too literally then...

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.
So far, so good. I understand this.

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.
This is where I think people are hung up, and where I don't see the relevance. It specifically discusses debt which is 'incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States' or 'any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave'.

I read the next line 'all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void' to mean specifically those instance mentioned within the section...

'incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave', and ONLY for these types of debt.

Again, maybe I am being too literal?

That part is parenthetical to the clause. The Constitution is full of those, which have caused innumerable squabbles over interpretation. It's just the way they wrote stuff in those days.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Obama does this first step is the Supreme Court. Once they rule it Unconstitutional the second step is Impeachment.

I agree. Third step, make sure no wing nut from left or right have a chance for the nominations next year.

 

[Jarhead]

Is that a Constitutional consideration?

why the diversion?
Insecure about your position in the debate?

No one is saying it is unconstitutional for congress to raise the debt ceiling.

I commented on your post about how often the debt ceiling was raised by congress...

And my comment was a legit question.....

But I will ask it this way...

All of those othere times that the debt ceiling was raised....was it at a time where:

1) the existing debt was such a high percentage of our GDP
2) our exiosting debt increased at such a high rate

And I'm saying if we're discussing the constitutionality of raising the debt limit, the size of the GDP has zero to do with it.

Maggie...now you are playing childsih games...I thought you were above that.

The discussion has NOTHING to do with the constitutionality of raising the debt limit.

It is consitutional to raise the debt limit.

This debate has to do with the coinsiututionality of one man, the President, raising the debt limit all by his lonesome.

I guess you had trouble comprehending the crux of the debate?

Or you decided to act like a child and play silly reindeer games.

Which one was it?

 

[MaggieMae]

Did you bother to read the 14th? It leaves to Congress the power to enforce it NOT the President. SO even if it did ( and it does not) say what you claim, it delegates the power BACK to Congress. Once again if Obama attempts to usurp powers granted by the Constitution to the Congress he is in direct violation of the Constitution. AN Impeachable offense that is sustained by his own public actions. If the Senate refused to vote guilty then those so voting would be supporting the violation of the Constitution. Our Government would cease to be a Republic and would no longer be of the people.

Well if you want to get even pickier, the president has the option of vetoing any bill enacted by Congress. It would then take a 2/3 majority to overturn the veto. Yeah, let's go there while unemployment continues its slog the vast majority of Americans could really give a sweet shit about the debt limit and want those idiots in Congress (and private sector) to start doing something about the overall economy. Who do you think will get blamed for political stalling and creating gridlock? Again. The president? Think again.

So you don't mind if Obama shreds the Constitution cause you like his ideas. Got it.

Where has it been "shredded" -- show me more. I see you like to pick up on Fox talking points, as well.

 

[Trajan]

Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.

Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com

President Obama let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues on Monday, confessing that he’d like to “bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.”

What does sound like he wants to be? That's right, a dictator. I guess we will find out tonight.

Uhm, no, I don't think so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

An aside on impeachment.

This is a constitutional and political tool.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever the House defines it to be in the indictment.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Listen, moron Fox/Rushbots- The head of Republicans, Senator McConnell, suggested this- so STFU, gd off the wall irresponsible hater/fanatics. Get a GD grip and turn off the demagogue BS, or move to Russia LOL!

 

[MaggieMae]

Spot on Leweman. Section 5 is the key and if Obama overrides it, then he has usurped the Constitution and will be impeachable. Section 5 states:

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

This man is actually what our founders warned us about when framing Article 2 Section 1. I am telling you and have been that this man is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office. The framers specifically drafted Article 2 Sect 1 for allegiance purposes only. That's why they wanted a president who was born a natural born citizen to two U.S. citizen parents where undivided born loyalty to his nation could never be questioned. With Obama being born to a British National father ,which gave him as a child born dual citizenship with allegiance to the British Crown, it is apparent his heart is not devoted to America and its people first, only to himself. That is what founder John Jay (1st Supreme Court Justice) warned George Washington about when framing the constitutions presidential clause, having a president with foreign allegiance. Well, it looks like Jay was right. Obama is going to usurp the 14th amendment in order to try to save his reelection chances first and foremost instead of putting the American people and the nation first. Bypassing Congress is doing just that.

Oh lordy, only a few years ago we had all sorts of right-wing arm-chair warriors telling us all how the Iraq war is going swimmingly and why. Now we've got all sorts of arm-chair lawyers and supreme court justice wannabes interpreting the Constitution for us over a clause that at best been IGNORED by both Republicans and Democrats for decades and at worst is being used now as just one more perceived piece of ammunition against the current president. You people are so transparent it's downright hilarious.

Against the President?

Maggie Mae...let me explain something to you. This has nothing to do with Barrak Obama. This has to do with the way our government was designed.

We have a system where no one person can make a major decision that affects everyone...he/she may veto...yes...but he/she can not be the decider by himself/herself in FAVOR of a decision.

It is a sytem that works and all we need to do is sidestep it once and the integrity of our system will be compromised.

So please.....get off that whole "ODS" crap......this is serious stuff.

This has nothing to do with Obama.

Riiiight....

 

[MaggieMae]

Breaking News. This just in.


Speaker John Boehner will go on National TV In A Rebuttal Speech Right After The Presidents Speech

Huge surprise.

My reaction too.

 

[MaggieMae]

Once again for the slow and stupid. The Government takes in enough revenue to pay the debt without rising the debt ceiling. And also to repeat, NO ONE is questioning the VALIDITY of the debt.

Prove it. How much is just interest on that debt? What if we just started paying the principal on debt to China? What if they simply said no, that's not the deal, and called it all in by demanding payment in gold instead of paper? Do you ever THINK about possible repercussions? Obviously not.

I can see you do not have a business thinking mind.
It would be financially foolish for China to do that.
Not to mention that it Likely is not part of the contract of debt

Obviously. I simply think you people are not thinking with regard to these TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUES. Raising the debt ceiling to pay for existing debt and a budget showdown for future spending that will follow.

Enough said.

 

[MaggieMae]

What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?

What on earth did the "57-state" faux pas have to do with the debt ceiling?

Nothing.

The 57th state faux pas was brought up in sarcasm when someone started to brag about Obama's in depth kinowledge of the consiutution. It was a funny response.

Iran Contra, however, was brought up in an effort to seriously argue the legiutimacy of Obama being a sole decider on something major.

Poor attempt at a diversion...AGAIN...Maggie.

I didn't mention either. Huh??????????????

 

[MaggieMae]

why the diversion?
Insecure about your position in the debate?

No one is saying it is unconstitutional for congress to raise the debt ceiling.

I commented on your post about how often the debt ceiling was raised by congress...

And my comment was a legit question.....

But I will ask it this way...

All of those othere times that the debt ceiling was raised....was it at a time where:

1) the existing debt was such a high percentage of our GDP
2) our exiosting debt increased at such a high rate

And I'm saying if we're discussing the constitutionality of raising the debt limit, the size of the GDP has zero to do with it.

Maggie...now you are playing childsih games...I thought you were above that.

The discussion has NOTHING to do with the constitutionality of raising the debt limit.

It is consitutional to raise the debt limit.

This debate has to do with the coinsiututionality of one man, the President, raising the debt limit all by his lonesome.

I guess you had trouble comprehending the crux of the debate?

Or you decided to act like a child and play silly reindeer games.

Which one was it?

Look at the title of the thread, man. Jeezus.

I'm willing to discuss the budget crisis anytime. Just not here, because there are other threads discussing it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Read the powers of the branches of Government. Only Congress has the power to incur debt for the Government.

I don't think raising the ceiling is incurring debt. I think it is subjective. I get credit card offers in the mail everyday. It's up to me (Congress) to decide to use them.

However the move as I see it is also political suicide for the President.

Here's where you are incorrect. The U.S. is in the situation of someone who keeps getting new credit cards to pay the interest on his maxed out ones.

Are we broke yet?

How much money is in the federal bank account? These two graphs, updated daily, tell the story. - By Chris Wilson - Slate Magazine

Calling me a hag in your neg rep all the time must really make your day. Grow the fuck up.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

British Chancellor of the Exchequer: "The biggest danger to the world economy is a bunch of Right Wing nuts in congress". The world is aghast at you moron Pub-propaganda dupes....

 

[Trajan]

Breaking News. This just in.


Speaker John Boehner will go on National TV In A Rebuttal Speech Right After The Presidents Speech

Huge surprise.

My reaction too.

is this objectionable?

 

[Jarhead]

And I'm saying if we're discussing the constitutionality of raising the debt limit, the size of the GDP has zero to do with it.

Maggie...now you are playing childsih games...I thought you were above that.

The discussion has NOTHING to do with the constitutionality of raising the debt limit.

It is consitutional to raise the debt limit.

This debate has to do with the coinsiututionality of one man, the President, raising the debt limit all by his lonesome.

I guess you had trouble comprehending the crux of the debate?

Or you decided to act like a child and play silly reindeer games.

Which one was it?

Look at the title of the thread, man. Jeezus.

I'm willing to discuss the budget crisis anytime. Just not here, because there are other threads discussing it.

Nice try Maggie..

So I will say the same thing to you.....

LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD

Breaking: Obama To Address Nation Tonight. Will Bypass Congress & Invoke 14th Amendmt

This thread has nothing to do with the constitutionality of raising the debt limit.

It has to do with the President op[ting to bypass congress and make a decision to do something that will affect all Americans...BY HIMSELF.

So tell me...

Is it that you are playingt childish games..

Or do you have a problem understanding the topics you debate.

It must be one of them...which one is it?

Are you a child or are you intellectually immature?

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

In the end, the ADULT in the room has to do the obviously necessary. It won't lose him any Pub cooperation, obviously- they won't even vote for THEIR ideas. Like many of the jobs bills and the pub style health reform. Insanity only brainwashed bigotted fanatics could support. The world is aghast.

 

[Jarhead]

Huge surprise.

My reaction too.

is this objectionable?

Not at all.

Maggie just likes to say childish things. It makes her feel like a winner.