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

[Mustang]

You have always been witless, ass-sucker.

You "recall" no such thing except in your delusions, moron.

You were useless then and you remain useless now.

Ya ******* douche.

OOOhhhh! OUCH, you got me with that one.

Your last few posts to a variety of posters have included the words stupid, moron, and dumb-ass. Originality just ain't yer thing, is it?

You're like an slow-witted, unfunny Don Rickles. You would look better if you just let it go.

The only laughable thing about your rejoinder effort is that you think you really had one there.

Seriously, you should have quit while you were only a few light years behind.

Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger ain't that funny, dude.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

American Chronicle | WITH A SINGLE EXECUTIVE ORDER, PRESIDENT OBAMA COULD AVOID A DEBT CEILING CRISIS





Precedent has been set.

Screw the GOP and their obstructionism.

You are correct that the precedent has been set. Fortunately, it has been set against your fantasies.

Ok, so make your point.

The SCOTUS already ruled on this so how are you going to rewrite their decision?

My point is you are an idiot.

In 1933 the US devalued the dollar and defaulted on its contractual obligation to redeem treasuries in gold upon demand. SCOTUS ruled that this was perfectly legal and constitutional, which means that defaulting on the US debt is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Perry V US was a part of that series of cases, and it only held that people would eventually get paid.

Since the US takes in about $175 billion a month the treasury will have plenty of money to restructure payments and prioritize spending in order to avoid an actual defaul. Believe it or not, that is what the article you are quoting is actually saying. In other words, if we do not raise the debt ceiling any default will lie solely in the lap of Obama.

 

[Liability]

OOOhhhh! OUCH, you got me with that one.

Your last few posts to a variety of posters have included the words stupid, moron, and dumb-ass. Originality just ain't yer thing, is it?

You're like an slow-witted, unfunny Don Rickles. You would look better if you just let it go.

The only laughable thing about your rejoinder effort is that you think you really had one there.

Seriously, you should have quit while you were only a few light years behind.

Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger ain't that funny, dude.

And nothing you have ever said here is funny or even marginally intelligent, twit.

 

[Nic_Driver]

In 1933 the US devalued the dollar and defaulted on its contractual obligation to redeem treasuries in gold upon demand. SCOTUS ruled that this was perfectly legal and constitutional, which means that defaulting on the US debt is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Perry V US was a part of that series of cases, and it only held that people would eventually get paid.

That's a great opinion, can you back it up?

I can quote directly from the Perry vs. the US case and it is clearly applicable, again, directly quoted.

11. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned," is confirmatory of a fundamental principle, applying as well to bonds issued after, as to those issued before, the adoption of the Amendment, and the expression "validity of the public debt " embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations. P. 294 U. S. 354.

Sounds pretty straight forward, I'll wait for your counter point.

BTW, your civility is noted, thank you for your fine example of the GOP style.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In 1933 the US devalued the dollar and defaulted on its contractual obligation to redeem treasuries in gold upon demand. SCOTUS ruled that this was perfectly legal and constitutional, which means that defaulting on the US debt is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Perry V US was a part of that series of cases, and it only held that people would eventually get paid.

That's a great opinion, can you back it up?

I can quote directly from the Perry vs. the US case and it is clearly applicable, again, directly quoted.

11. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned," is confirmatory of a fundamental principle, applying as well to bonds issued after, as to those issued before, the adoption of the Amendment, and the expression "validity of the public debt " embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations. P. 294 U. S. 354.

Sounds pretty straight forward, I'll wait for your counter point.

BTW, your civility is noted, thank you for your fine example of the GOP style.

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.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The threat, ya ******* dumbshit, is to spend money that Congress hasn't authorized, yashitforbraincrapmuncher.

Now, kindly go **** yourself, doucherag.

Really? Then who authorized it if not Congress?

Man are you slow.

NOBODY authorized it, stupid.

What the President is pondering is whether or not he can get away with spending money which Congress has refused to authorize.

Try to keep up, dumb-ass.

The US has unauthorized debt?

Your right, I must be really dense. Given my density, could you help me out and explain how we accumulated unauthorized debt?

 

[Nic_Driver]

In 1933 the US devalued the dollar and defaulted on its contractual obligation to redeem treasuries in gold upon demand. SCOTUS ruled that this was perfectly legal and constitutional, which means that defaulting on the US debt is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Perry V US was a part of that series of cases, and it only held that people would eventually get paid.

That's a great opinion, can you back it up?

I can quote directly from the Perry vs. the US case and it is clearly applicable, again, directly quoted.

11. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned," is confirmatory of a fundamental principle, applying as well to bonds issued after, as to those issued before, the adoption of the Amendment, and the expression "validity of the public debt " embraces whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations. P. 294 U. S. 354.

Sounds pretty straight forward, I'll wait for your counter point.

BTW, your civility is noted, thank you for your fine example of the GOP style.

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.

 

[Steelplate]

Offtopic.com

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act'

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

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.

 

[Steelplate]

Offtopic.com

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act'

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

Well, a president who does not following the Constitution is definitely an impeachable act. This is the job of the Congress, not the President. One would think he would have at least read the Constitution.

One would think that maybe you should understand what the hell you are talking about before critiquing others.

14th Amendment section 4...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. 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.

In other words... there technically is no debt limit anyway if the validity of said debt is not to be questioned.

 

[Too Tall]

Which constituted a high crime or misdemenor in what way? Was it worth it? Putting pressure on a President that was involved in rebuilding America's economy? Hunting for Osama Bin Laden? Seriously?

It also degraded what impeachment should actually be used for...and that would be removing a President that could be injurious to the Nation.

In fact..it turned the whole procedure into a farce. Which is the point.

Radical conservatives are seeking to nullify the American Government.

People need to bone up on thier history. <pun intended]

Bill was spot lighted due to sexual harrassment of an intern, then impeach for lying under oath.

He still got to serve out his term.

Except he didn't lie under oath or commit perjury. Which is why he wasn't removed from office.

Just so you will understand, a willful failure to testify truthfully is the same as lying. And he paid a $90,000 fine for lying under oath.

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:


"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

 

[Too Tall]

That's a great opinion, can you back it up?

I can quote directly from the Perry vs. the US case and it is clearly applicable, again, directly quoted.
Sounds pretty straight forward, I'll wait for your counter point.

BTW, your civility is noted, thank you for your fine example of the GOP style.

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.

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.

 

[MikeFrank]

Why do people post misleading titles? he is trying to use the 14th which does not pertain to the debt ceiling to envoke the debt limit which is a load of crap.

 

[Care4all]

there will not be a DIME for national defense spending etc....

Like the Obama gave a shit about OUR NATIONAL SECURITY and DEFENSE when he spent trillions to get us where we are today.

so far he's spent about 2 trillion over budget I believe? Our National debt was 12 trillion when he took office and now it is a little over 14 trillion I think?

Since Obama's first budget, I think he and congress has added 2 trillion or so. For president bush's 8 years of office, $6 trillion plus, was added to the National debt....When president bush began office the national debt accumulated was $5.6 trillion, ending at around $12. trillion for the national debt.

Me thinks you need to stop blaming obama for the whole shebang.....when it is simply NOT TRUE that he is the sole person that has caused this financial deficit and debt.....! just sayin' it as it is....

 

[bodecea]

Cool. Conservative radical right wing republicans are showing more and more their disdain for government and willingness to use severe government procedures in very friviolous ways.

This would be the second American Democratic President in a row that is undergoing an impeachment due to a Conservative snit fit.

Ya had nothing at all to do with the first POS getting his dick sucked in the oval office by an intern.....something the left is oh so proud of.

Interesting.....and the American people were SOOOOO with the Impeachers on that one.

 

[peace2011]

China has said "any attack on pakistan will construed to attack on China". Does Obama want World War 3?

China can field an army of 200 million men

China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars and the Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men.

I agree with the estimate of China's immense "militia." There are tens of millions of young men and women moving around the countryside looking for work, living in temp shelters, footloose and with a deep anger about their fate of being shut out of the ancient, sacred family tradition they share with all Chinese, The unattached mobs of young men have always been tender boxes. This is so immense it is hard to grasp its implications. Since China is allying with Russia, Pakistan, Iran, and central Asia with all of that oil and gas, it's a potentially great global shift, if they can solve their bureaucracy problems.

The Chinese et al. will probably buy gold quietly and slowly to avoid rapid price hikes. It will be hard to detect directly, but people like Soros and Faber might have sources to watch. This could become a massive move toward a new currency base to escape the U.S. Fed's tsunami of trash paper and its Global Inflation Bubble.

 

[candycorn]

You have always been witless, ass-sucker.

You "recall" no such thing except in your delusions, moron.

You were useless then and you remain useless now.

Ya ******* douche.

OOOhhhh! OUCH, you got me with that one.

Your last few posts to a variety of posters have included the words stupid, moron, and dumb-ass. Originality just ain't yer thing, is it?

You're like an slow-witted, unfunny Don Rickles. You would look better if you just let it go.

The only laughable thing about your rejoinder effort is that you think you really had one there.

Seriously, you should have quit while you were only a few light years behind.

Surgical...purely surgical

 

[candycorn]

there will not be a DIME for national defense spending etc....

Like the Obama gave a shit about OUR NATIONAL SECURITY and DEFENSE when he spent trillions to get us where we are today.

so far he's spent about 2 trillion over budget I believe? Our National debt was 12 trillion when he took office and now it is a little over 14 trillion I think?

Since Obama's first budget, I think he and congress has added 2 trillion or so. For president bush's 8 years of office, $6 trillion plus, was added to the National debt....When president bush began office the national debt accumulated was $5.6 trillion, ending at around $12. trillion for the national debt.

Me thinks you need to stop blaming obama for the whole shebang.....when it is simply NOT TRUE that he is the sole person that has caused this financial deficit and debt.....! just sayin' it as it is....

Thats never stopped them from blaming Obama. He'll be blamed for global warming next... Now the GOP denies global warming is taking place but hell, if they can pin it on him, they'll do it. Watch.

 

[Stephanie]

there will not be a DIME for national defense spending etc....

Like the Obama gave a shit about OUR NATIONAL SECURITY and DEFENSE when he spent trillions to get us where we are today.

so far he's spent about 2 trillion over budget I believe? Our National debt was 12 trillion when he took office and now it is a little over 14 trillion I think?

Since Obama's first budget, I think he and congress has added 2 trillion or so. For president bush's 8 years of office, $6 trillion plus, was added to the National debt....When president bush began office the national debt accumulated was $5.6 trillion, ending at around $12. trillion for the national debt.

Me thinks you need to stop blaming obama for the whole shebang.....when it is simply NOT TRUE that he is the sole person that has caused this financial deficit and debt.....! just sayin' it as it is....

oh I see, only TWO TRILLION IN how many MONTHS has he been if office? But hey, we won't Blame the Obama for nothing.

 

[saveliberty]

Offtopic.com

Congressman Asserts Potential 'Impeachable Act'

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

Well, a president who does not following the Constitution is definitely an impeachable act. This is the job of the Congress, not the President. One would think he would have at least read the Constitution.

One would think that maybe you should understand what the hell you are talking about before critiquing others.

14th Amendment section 4...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. 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.

In other words... there technically is no debt limit anyway if the validity of said debt is not to be questioned.

It is apparently completely lost on you that this applies specifically to the Civil War and you have omitted section five which gives the authority to Congress. Total fail on your part.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a great opinion, can you back it up?

I can quote directly from the Perry vs. the US case and it is clearly applicable, again, directly quoted.
Sounds pretty straight forward, I'll wait for your counter point.

BTW, your civility is noted, thank you for your fine example of the GOP style.

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.