Debt cealing issue solved..no republicans needed?

[pocketfullofshells]

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.

The 14th Amendment, section 4.

Just outlaw the debt ceiling...and move on?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Memo to PFOS:

First of all, it's spelled "ceiling".

Second of all, have somebody read Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, and explain to you what it means. Based on your comment, you obviously don't have a clue.

Lastly, I would ask the "moderator on duty" to please DELETE this thread, due to the author's (PFOS) complete lack of reading comprehension skills.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Memo to PFOS:

First of all, it's spelled "ceiling".

Second of all, have somebody read Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, and explain to you what it means. Based on your comment, you obviously don't have a clue.

Lastly, I would ask the "moderator on duty" to please DELETE this thread, due to the author's (PFOS) complete lack of reading comprehension skills.

in other words you can't refute it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

in other words you can't refute it.

In other words, I don't need to refute your complete misinterpretation of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, because virtually NOTHING you ever post in this forum reaches the minimum level of legitimacy.

(I know that last sentence is WAY over your head, so just pretend that I didn't respond to your nonsense)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

such a wise rebuttal...Basicly your case is, No its not, and I am not going to say why. what ever I say goes and I don't need to back up it up.

You have nothing, don't want it to be true, and thats about it....

 

[pocketfullofshells]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx

Former Reagan adviser and Treasury official Bruce Bartlett
Let me guess.Rino or liberal right?

 

[clarkatticus]

It is an interesting debate, on one side the Amendment seems to say the debt payment cannot be obstructed, but there is a caveat. The GOP will say they are, in their own way, trying to pay the debt by denying the Left the ability to increase it-disingenious as it may seem to us. There may at one time have been a Supreme Court that would have sided with the Left on this one, but THIS is definately not the one. Could the Left prove that the GOP is holding back to tank the economy just to get another GOP president elected? Again, not with this Court. So while it is obvious to everyone on the left the GOP does not care a rats arse about ther middle class and would do anything to regain the presidency, proving it is another thing.

 

[Rick]

The OP is ludicrous, but it does reveal (once again) the leftwing mentality: everything would be woderful if they could just rule by decree as in a banana republic, which is why so many of them admire the PRC.

 

[nobull]

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.

The 14th Amendment, section 4.

Just outlaw the debt ceiling...and move on?

I take it you recieved those brownies I sent you?
Eat no more than one at a time, and no matter how real it may seem, YOU CANNOT FLY!!!! lol

regards
doug

 

[Gipper]

The OP is ludicrous, but it does reveal (once again) the leftwing mentality: everything would be woderful if they could just rule by decree as in a banana republic, which is why so many of them admire the PRC.

Exactly.

I hope BO and Dems do what Pockets suggests. It would be another nail in their anti-democratic coffin and the American people will understand it as such. And, come 2012 they will vote very stinking progressive anti-American Dem out of office including the Big Eared Marxist.

 

[GenSeneca]

Second of all, have somebody read Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, and explain to you what it means. Based on your comment, you obviously don't have a clue.

Aren't you listening to pocket? The constitution is open to endless interpretation, it means whatever he thinks it means, whatever he says it means, no matter how detached that conclusion might be from the original intent of the language. Original intent is for knuckle dragging mouth breathers (Republicans and Tea Party types), interpreting the constituton as saying whatever the hell you want it to say is very Progressive.

Obama should, once again, totally ignore any and all laws that get in the way of his Progressive agenda. That's the pragmatic approach and it's working very well for him so far. Furthermore, he should totally ignore Congress (since it wouldn't be pragmatic to disband Congress at the moment) and simply rule by executive order.

I wonder why Pocket hasn't pointed out that the 22nd amendment actaully authorizes Obama to serve unlimited consecutive terms as president and not just the two terms, as it's currently interpreted by the knuckle dragging mouth breathers.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It is an interesting debate, on one side the Amendment seems to say the debt payment cannot be obstructed, but there is a caveat. The GOP will say they are, in their own way, trying to pay the debt by denying the Left the ability to increase it-disingenious as it may seem to us. There may at one time have been a Supreme Court that would have sided with the Left on this one, but THIS is definately not the one. Could the Left prove that the GOP is holding back to tank the economy just to get another GOP president elected? Again, not with this Court. So while it is obvious to everyone on the left the GOP does not care a rats arse about ther middle class and would do anything to regain the presidency, proving it is another thing.

they would not need to prove the republicans are doing anything...trying to pay the debts is not paying them...thus if they fail, then you must still do it. The hardest part for the Republicans is, they may not even be able to sue the white house for doing so, as only the house and Senate would have standing to sue it is believed by some..and the odds of getting both houses to do that are slim at best. Also the SC has as of late given a pretty big leap of latitude for the power of the executive...just look at all the things Bush was able to get them to agree to...so I don't think they are likely to side with the right as you think.

funny no one on the right has said one valid reason why this would not be true...just yelled your wrong and your dumb and offered nothing of value...shocking

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Aren't you listening to pocket? The constitution is open to endless interpretation, it means whatever he thinks it means, whatever he says it means, no matter how detached that conclusion might be from the original intent of the language. Original intent is for knuckle dragging mouth breathers (Republicans and Tea Party types), interpreting the constituton as saying whatever the hell you want it to say is very Progressive.

Obama should, once again, totally ignore any and all laws that get in the way of his Progressive agenda. That's the pragmatic approach and it's working very well for him so far. Furthermore, he should totally ignore Congress (since it wouldn't be pragmatic to disband Congress at the moment) and simply rule by executive order.

I wonder why Pocket hasn't pointed out that the 22nd amendment actaully authorizes Obama to serve unlimited consecutive terms as president and not just the two terms, as it's currently interpreted by the knuckle dragging mouth breathers.

News flash, yes the constitution is open to interpretation...Thats why we have courts..and why courts rulings change over time...

you or anyone else have not offered any interpretation other then what is stated...so I can only guess that yours is based on...I don't like what the constitution says so I will ignore it.

you run around screaming about the constitution needs to be followed...until it goes against what you want...and of course only you are able to interpret it, no one else is..

 

[bododie]

you run around screaming about the constitution needs to be followed...until it goes against what you want...and of course only you are able to interpret it, no one else is..

Name ONE thing that conservatives want changed about the Constitution as it stands.
Just the facts please....

 

[Rick]

The word "interpret" is being used here as an equivocation to make illogical conclusions.

"Interpret", as in "intepret the constitution", is a legal term of art which means "determine exactly how the constitution should be applied to this case".

Decades of liberal ideologues on the federal courts have changed "interpret" to mean that the constitution is like playdough, that they can make it mean anything they want, as long as they come up with a pseudo-argument to impress the rubes who still believe such quaint notions as that the cinstitution is the fundamental law of the land, and can only be changed by constitutional amendment.