Has The House Violated The 14th Amendment?

[WillowTree]

depends on your place in the pecking order... he isn't that bright.

Sez the woman who fell for Anthony's Wiener.

thanks for stopping by.

if I were you I'd avoid any sentence that has any form of the "peck" word in it,, it leaves you wide open for weenie jokes..

 

[jillian]

Sez the woman who fell for Anthony's Wiener.

thanks for stopping by.

The truth hurts, I know.
If you would just come clean and admit you are not really a lawyer you would have more cred here. As it is, every word you write is tainted by the stench of bullshit. That and the fact you can't argue a sunny day byt must insult anyone who disagrees with you.

says the pretend rabbi who started the insults.

nutbar.

 

[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?

Actually, as mentioned, they've passed several bills.
The question is whether Obama and the Democrats ought to be impeached for a) failing to pass a budget for the last 2years, and b) running up the debt to where it is nearly unpayable.
The otehr question is when you will finally admit you aren't a lawyer at all but instead a barmaid in a drag bar.

whatever makes you feel better about yourself, toilet salesman.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Look folks why are we arguing over this the seats in Congress have one percenters sitting in them everytime Congress is in session . Do you really think they will raise a tax on themself? If they do it's because they have a number of loopholes in their new tax bill.

 

[The Rabbi]

thanks for stopping by.

The truth hurts, I know.
If you would just come clean and admit you are not really a lawyer you would have more cred here. As it is, every word you write is tainted by the stench of bullshit. That and the fact you can't argue a sunny day byt must insult anyone who disagrees with you.

says the pretend rabbi who started the insults.

nutbar.

Please. Show me one thread where your second post did not insult someone who disagreed with you.

No, you are not credible. I frankly doubt you are sane.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Can you provide a list of people who have said the debt is invalid? The ones who think that the full faith and credit of the US is somehow not large enough to pay the debts we have?

I am assuming you are excluding Obama from this list, so we will just pretend he never uttered the blatant false statement that not raising the debt ceiling will somehow force the Treasury not to send out Social Security checks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Nope.......

They have passed three bills.

linking it to things that are not passable..

think more instead of posting what you wish were true.

the FACT is that by dragging their butts and holding the country hostage to the rightwingnut agenda, they have very much undermined us financially. The question is, does it rise to the level of a constitutional violation?

Is that anything like the Senate passing bills they know are unpassable in the House?

How could it possibly rise to the level of violating a part of the Constitution that has not been violated?

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

No.

14th clearly says what has to be paid. If there is no increase in debt ceiling, we'll know soon who respect the Constitution, and who violates it.

actually, it says EVERYTHING has to be paid. "including" the specific things named. It does NOT exclude everything else that needs to be paid if that's what you're implying.

Not everything. Unfunded obligations are not part of everything, those obligations are part of federal budget. As you know, we don't have a federal budget for couple of years now. No budget, no increase in debt ceiling, therefore no obligations to pay for anything but interest on debt, pensions and military. We do have enough money for those things.

 

[jillian]

Nope.......

They have passed three bills.

linking it to things that are not passable..

think more instead of posting what you wish were true.

the FACT is that by dragging their butts and holding the country hostage to the rightwingnut agenda, they have very much undermined us financially. The question is, does it rise to the level of a constitutional violation?

Is that anything like the Senate passing bills they know are unpassable in the House?

How could it possibly rise to the level of violating a part of the Constitution that has not been violated?

i'm not sure your question is saying what you want it to.

do i think it's all theatre of the absurd? of course, i do. but then again there's never been this kind of insanity before.

 

[jillian]

No.

14th clearly says what has to be paid. If there is no increase in debt ceiling, we'll know soon who respect the Constitution, and who violates it.

actually, it says EVERYTHING has to be paid. "including" the specific things named. It does NOT exclude everything else that needs to be paid if that's what you're implying.

Not everything. Unfunded obligations are not part of everything, those obligations are part of federal budget. As you know, we don't have a federal budget for couple of years now. No budget, no increase in debt ceiling, therefore no obligations to pay for anything but interest on debt, pensions and military. We do have enough money for those things.

i don't see anything in law that says no budget, no debt ceiling.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Jillian last year the democrats didn't even have a budget, do you really want to go there?

it's been over 800 days since the dimocrats produced a budget,, see? they don't want a budget, to have a budget implies they must live within their budget,, they don't wants em no damn budget.

822 days as of 31 July 2011.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

No one has demonstrated how the Republicans are calling in to question the debts incurred to pursue the Civil war.

Nor is anyone in congress suggesting any current debt authorized by congress be ignored.

What congress is doing is saying no more NEW debt is authorized. The old debts are still legit, and the treasury can still pay those bills out of current receipts. Folks who owe taxes still have to pay them, and all payments these days go through banks and are transmitted electronically to the Federal Reserve, the treasury's authorized agent for making payments on the debts.


We are at the point now where we have maxed out the credit card. We still have income, we still have the capability to pay our bills as they come in. We just can't buy anything new on the credit card. Failure to charge any new bills is not the same as failure to pay the old ones.

 

[jillian]

No one has demonstrated how the Republicans are calling in to question the debts incurred to pursue the Civil war.

Nor is anyone in congress suggesting any current debt authorized by congress be ignored.

What congress is doing is saying no more NEW debt is authorized. The old debts are still legit, and the treasury can still pay those bills out of current receipts. Folks who owe taxes still have to pay them, and all payments these days go through banks and are transmitted electronically to the Federal Reserve, the treasury's authorized agent for making payments on the debts.


We are at the point now where we have maxed out the credit card. We still have income, we still have the capability to pay our bills as they come in. We just can't buy anything new on the credit card. Failure to charge any new bills is not the same as failure to pay the old ones.

baruch, the debt ceiling is about money we've already spent

 

[Ame®icano]

actually, it says EVERYTHING has to be paid. "including" the specific things named. It does NOT exclude everything else that needs to be paid if that's what you're implying.

Not everything. Unfunded obligations are not part of everything, those obligations are part of federal budget. As you know, we don't have a federal budget for couple of years now. No budget, no increase in debt ceiling, therefore no obligations to pay for anything but interest on debt, pensions and military. We do have enough money for those things.

i don't see anything in law that says no budget, no debt ceiling.

Not directly.

Passing the budget includes means of financing the budget. If there is no enough revenue, then Congress can issue new debt, as part of the budget. Last couple of years, we don't have budget that will authorize new debt, and government is trying to increase debt ceiling without budget, only to continue to fund their programs, that they wouldn't be able to fund otherwise.

Does this help?

 

[jillian]

Not everything. Unfunded obligations are not part of everything, those obligations are part of federal budget. As you know, we don't have a federal budget for couple of years now. No budget, no increase in debt ceiling, therefore no obligations to pay for anything but interest on debt, pensions and military. We do have enough money for those things.

i don't see anything in law that says no budget, no debt ceiling.

Not directly.

Passing the budget includes means of financing the budget. If there is no enough revenue, then Congress can issue new debt, as part of the budget. Last couple of years, we don't have budget that will authorize new debt, and government is trying to increase debt ceiling without budget, only to continue to fund their programs, that they wouldn't be able to fund otherwise.

Does this help?

it helps explain what you think.

it isn't correct as a matter of law, though, since the debt ceiling is about money we've already budgeted and SPENT.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The debt ceiling relates to the credit limit. I have 495 on my mier and frank credit card. There is a credit limit of $500. that is money already spent. I want to buy something for $10, I can't. there is a limit. the 495 is spent already. The debt ceiling debate is over that marginal $5

 

[Ame®icano]

i don't see anything in law that says no budget, no debt ceiling.

Not directly.

Passing the budget includes means of financing the budget. If there is no enough revenue, then Congress can issue new debt, as part of the budget. Last couple of years, we don't have budget that will authorize new debt, and government is trying to increase debt ceiling without budget, only to continue to fund their programs, that they wouldn't be able to fund otherwise.

Does this help?

it helps explain what you think.

it isn't correct as a matter of law, though, since the debt ceiling is about money we've already budgeted and SPENT.

The constitution supersedes any law. Now explain, what law are you talking about?

And what is budget you're talking about?

 

[Ame®icano]

The debt ceiling relates to the credit limit. I have 495 on my mier and frank credit card. There is a credit limit of $500. that is money already spent. I want to buy something for $10, I can't. there is a limit. the 495 is spent already. The debt ceiling debate is over that marginal $5

Yeah, LOL... debt ceiling debate is actually about something you want to spend, and you plan to spend, but you can't pay for it. Time to change spending habits.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah the annual $1T+ deficit is not the problem.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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?

The Fourteenth Amendment is tyrannical...

I've been calling it such for nearly a decade now.

The Fourteenth Amendment creates a slippery slope in which violates the Bill of Rights, or for the idiots our first 10 amendments.