We will Impeach Obama if he follows the Constitution: Republican Congressman

[Chris]

Offtopic.com

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act'

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act' - West Ashley, SC Patch

South Carolina is the land that time forgot.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama is famous for doing? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Bush is the grandmaster of it. Go watch the Frontline documentary: Cheney's Law. Republicans weren't crowing about such things when yer boy Bush did it.

Boooooooooooooooooooooosh.......boo

 

[Nic_Driver]

I already did back it up. The US defaulted on its debt, devalued the dollar, and refused to pay everyone in gold, which is what the actual treasury binds were issued on. Go read your precious opinion and prove me wrong.

Perhaps your unaware of how debate works. Whoever makes to positive assertion bears the burden of proof. I've quoted from the Perry vs. US ruling and it makes a very strong argument for, not much against that I can find.

PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U. S. 330 :: Volume 294 :: 1935 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

5. By virtue of the power to borrow money "on the credit of the United States," Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as assurance of payment as stipulated -- as the highest assurance the Government can give -- its plighted faith. To say that Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise, a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. P. 294 U. S. 351.

6. When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. P. 294 U. S. 352.

7. The right to make binding obligations is a power of sovereignty. P. 294 U. S. 353.

8. The sovereignty of the United States resides in the people, and Congress cannot invoke the sovereignty of the people to override their will as declared in the Constitution. P. 294 U. S. 353.

9. The power given Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States is unqualified and vital to the Government, and the binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit pledged. P. 294 U. S. 353.

Make your case, I'm interested.

Go back and read the ******* thread. I made my case, and then you challenged me to make it again.

Ok, you failed.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The problem is Obama won't be following the constitution. He has no right to spend money without congressional approval. It's pretty clear that this is the duty of Congress.

Obama hasn't met with his cabinet in months. He feels they aren't essential. He uses czars instead.

Obama constantly tries to ignore our laws. He wants to obey foreign laws and ignore ours. He's constantly looking for loopholes in the constitution. It's guys like Obama that are always exploring the flaws in our laws that makes the ability to amend the constitution an imperative.

Hey numbnuts... the money has already been spent... he's just trying to pay the bills...All that money? has already been approved by congress... this is the debt limit we are talking about... not the budget... that's already been passed. Idiots... the lot of ya.

It hasn't been spent yet.

But payment has been promised with the full faith of the United States.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Perhaps your unaware of how debate works. Whoever makes to positive assertion bears the burden of proof. I've quoted from the Perry vs. US ruling and it makes a very strong argument for, not much against that I can find.

PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U. S. 330 :: Volume 294 :: 1935 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Make your case, I'm interested.

I believe that Obama has the constitutional authority and obligation to use tax revenue to pay all interest on accrued debt. and I believe he has to do that FIRST, and I do not believe he can borrow above the debt limit set by Congress to do so.

I have told him that.

Twice.

You've twice explained to me your opinion but you know what they say about opinions and assholes, everyone has one.

Don't debate me, just refute Perry vs. the United States.

 

[Liability]

and the president, he made that threat when?

jesus, some people are thick.

Yes, you are indeed thick. Impenetrably thick, ya fuckin' dumb shit.

Did you imagine this conversation sprang up out of thin air, asshole?

Trial balloons were getting floated. The President doesn't have to be the one to say the words, you ignorant twit, to be the one behind the threat.

You are tragically stupid.

and it doesn't matter to you that the white house spokesman said it wasn't discussed and hadn't been considered?

but because there's wild speculation out there it automatically means that the president is threatening to do it?

is that really how your mind works? it would explain a lot about you.

No dipstick. It doesn't matter to me that a President who is infamous for vacillating and lying has said one thing (via a spokesperson) while at the same time the same White House is clearly floating this 14th Amendment trial balloon.

And, yes, stupid: the fact that the idiots are floating the trial balloon does make it a threat.

A mind that works is beyond your ability to comprehend, ass-sucker.

Now hurry back with more of your prattle and gibberish.

 

[Liability]

A discussion with a mind as rusted shut as ogibillm's mind is remains rather pointless.

However, for the sake of discussion, there ARE some pretty decent academic/legal arguments concerning the alleged INvalidity of a national "debt limit" and the alleged VALIDITY of a Constitutional analysis predicated on the 14th Amendment.

The Debt-Limit Crisis: | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia [The legal/economic scholar who wrote that piece may have a very liberal bias, but putting his apparent bias aside, his actual arguments seem pretty focused and might be worth some consideration by both sides of the discussion.]

There are also very compelling counter arguments. One of the best counter-arguments I have seen comes (not surprisingly) from CrusaderFrank. In a nutshell, his argument is that we have a very healthy national "revenue" stream. It is sufficient to pay our indebtedness so as to avoid any defaults or damage to our full faith and credit;

but the determination to USE the "revenue" for those purposes, FIRST, and THEN to allocate the balance for the other programs and expenditures we need is a difficult POLITICAL problem of will.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You guys have all read article 1 of the constitution right?

If you haven't please do so, it outlines that the congress has the sole discression in the budgets and matters of national debt and that the president has no authority on their own to make a budget or raise the debt ceiling.

Im not sure why this thread is even still going on.

 

[Vanquish]

Obama is famous for doing? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Bush is the grandmaster of it. Go watch the Frontline documentary: Cheney's Law. Republicans weren't crowing about such things when yer boy Bush did it.

So we should just continue on our merry way then?

No. That was my point, exactly. Read the line above the one you quoted...then soak it in.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If something shouldn't be done, no one should do it.

I'm just saying it's a bit hypocritical to claim moral superiority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong.... when the budget was passed last year... you do remember that, right? That money was spent. They don't pass a budget and say... this is our plan for the year... IF we have the money.

Wrong. We have not have a budget since the 2009fy.

Want to try again?

That would be like you and your wife saying.... Let's buy a car. You go to the dealer and work out financing terms and then 6 months later say.... Wow... look at our debt.... I'm not paying. Even if you call the creditor and say... hey... I'm just going to pay interest payments for a while...Your credit rating goes to shit and you end up with a loan shark level interest rate.

It's no different. Whoever told you that "the money is not spent" is lying to you.

The money is not spent until it is actually spent if you use a cash accounting system, which the government, and most homeowners, do. It is not even actually owed until the bills come due. It isn't my fault you do not understand basic accounting.

On top of that, the Treasury actually can restructure payments that are going out to prioritize debt payments to keep our credit rating from being negatively affected. this will mean not paying something else, like federal salaries, and shutting down non essential government services, but it will not actually result in a default. The government receives approximately $175 billion in revenue every month, which is more than enough to manage the debt services, SS, Medicare, and most of the everyday expenses of the military. They might have to shut down HUD, but that will not destroy the economy.

 

[saveliberty]

You guys have all read article 1 of the constitution right?

If you haven't please do so, it outlines that the congress has the sole discression in the budgets and matters of national debt and that the president has no authority on their own to make a budget or raise the debt ceiling.

Im not sure why this thread is even still going on.

P-a-r-t-i-s-a-n-s-h-i-p of the left.

 

[Steelplate]

It hasn't been spent yet.

Wrong.... when the budget was passed last year... you do remember that, right? That money was spent. They don't pass a budget and say... this is our plan for the year... IF we have the money.

That would be like you and your wife saying.... Let's buy a car. You go to the dealer and work out financing terms and then 6 months later say.... Wow... look at our debt.... I'm not paying. Even if you call the creditor and say... hey... I'm just going to pay interest payments for a while...Your credit rating goes to shit and you end up with a loan shark level interest rate.

It's no different. Whoever told you that "the money is not spent" is lying to you.

There was no budget passed last year

You are correct. It was passed on April 14, 2011. The rest still applies.

 

[Steelplate]

Wrong.... when the budget was passed last year... you do remember that, right? That money was spent. They don't pass a budget and say... this is our plan for the year... IF we have the money.

Wrong. We have not have a budget since the 2009fy.

Want to try again?

That would be like you and your wife saying.... Let's buy a car. You go to the dealer and work out financing terms and then 6 months later say.... Wow... look at our debt.... I'm not paying. Even if you call the creditor and say... hey... I'm just going to pay interest payments for a while...Your credit rating goes to shit and you end up with a loan shark level interest rate.

It's no different. Whoever told you that "the money is not spent" is lying to you.

The money is not spent until it is actually spent if you use a cash accounting system, which the government, and most homeowners, do. It is not even actually owed until the bills come due. It isn't my fault you do not understand basic accounting.

On top of that, the Treasury actually can restructure payments that are going out to prioritize debt payments to keep our credit rating from being negatively affected. this will mean not paying something else, like federal salaries, and shutting down non essential government services, but it will not actually result in a default. The government receives approximately $175 billion in revenue every month, which is more than enough to manage the debt services, SS, Medicare, and most of the everyday expenses of the military. They might have to shut down HUD, but that will not destroy the economy.

I don't know where you guys have been.... it was passed April 14th.

Congress Passes Budget for 2011, Sends to Obama for Signature - FoxNews.com

 

[Nic_Driver]

You guys have all read article 1 of the constitution right?

If you haven't please do so, it outlines that the congress has the sole discression in the budgets and matters of national debt and that the president has no authority on their own to make a budget or raise the debt ceiling.

Im not sure why this thread is even still going on.

P-a-r-t-i-s-a-n-s-h-i-p of the left.

Partisanship of the right is why this is even a potential.

 

[Ali777]

All we can hope for is IMPEACHMENT for this America hating, ugly, divisive President before he DOES US MORE DAMAGE. I wish for it every day.

Why not just vote him out of office, or wait?

Never mind. I see you're problem now.

You can't hope that the majority of voters don't want him in office.
The whole birther thing fell through.
So this is the last best hope to get your way.

 

[Vanquish]

All we can hope for is IMPEACHMENT for this America hating, ugly, divisive President before he DOES US MORE DAMAGE. I wish for it every day.

So you decry divisiveness...but then you call for something as radical as impeachment??

You, madam, win the Tin-foil-hat prize for today, 7-8-11.

 

[Stephanie]

All we can hope for is IMPEACHMENT for this America hating, ugly, divisive President before he DOES US MORE DAMAGE. I wish for it every day.

Why not just vote him out of office, or wait?

Never mind. I see you're problem now.

You can't hope that the majority of voters don't want him in office.
The whole birther thing fell through.
So this is the last best hope to get your way.

 

[Stephanie]

All we can hope for is IMPEACHMENT for this America hating, ugly, divisive President before he DOES US MORE DAMAGE. I wish for it every day.

So you decry divisiveness...but then you call for something as radical as impeachment??

You, madam, win the Tin-foil-hat prize for today, 7-8-11.

ah, so when they were calling for Bush to be impeached, did you call it RADICAL THEN?

RADICAL

 

[Dot Com]

All we can hope for is IMPEACHMENT for this America hating, ugly, divisive President before he DOES US MORE DAMAGE. I wish for it every day.

sore-loser post of the day

 

[Vanquish]

All we can hope for is IMPEACHMENT for this America hating, ugly, divisive President before he DOES US MORE DAMAGE. I wish for it every day.

So you decry divisiveness...but then you call for something as radical as impeachment??

You, madam, win the Tin-foil-hat prize for today, 7-8-11.

ah, so when they were calling for Bush to be impeached, did you call it RADICAL THEN?

RADICAL

Actually I did. I think a President has to do something faaaaar beyond policy decisions - something criminal, treasonous, or immoral - before they should be impeached.

Only divisive reactionaries have a split of opinion on policy and call for someone's head.