Should our government give supreme court powers over the president?

Werbung:
Clinton had nithing to do with it. The debt was limited by the six years during bubba's admin that the gop controlled congress, where spending bills originate.

Ah yes, that is so true, and then that very same Congress viciously turned on GW Bush, forcing GW to double the national debt. Those sneaky two-faced dolts!
 
Ah yes, that is so true, and then that very same Congress viciously turned on GW Bush, forcing GW to double the national debt. Those sneaky two-faced dolts!

RINOs, leftwingers, no difference. It was HARDLY the same congress. Come back when you know your history. :rolleyes:
 
You wont be laughing when she takes the oath of office as 45th president of the united states.

No one will be laughing. Most of us will be gaping in horror and astonishment, saying, "What the-----, are the voters totally nuts?"

Or would be, should such a thing ever really happen.
 
so of course if the debt ceiling is unconstitutional...the president should have to just let congress keep doing it? Or should he wait till the congress decides to take them self to the supreme court?

wait I forgot this is one of those issues where Republicans decided how to interpret the constitution...and the Dems must follow it...and then they just tell the courts what they decided and they go with it right?

Republicans are going to kill this nation in a few months....They will hold the line...even if it kills us....Seems they fail to figure out...the Dems have the white house and Senate...that means you don't get to just have only your way...each house member was elected by a small fraction of the people who voted for Obama..over the Republican....But they all think they are the more powerful ones.

of course the white house has said they will not use the 14th anyway...but you right wing nut jobs just keep at it, after when has not being for something ever stopped you from attacking the left for being for something?

"In addition to his warnings about the cost of a default, officials said, Mr. Geithner told the lawmakers the White House did not believe it had the authority, under the Constitution, to continue issuing debt if it reached the debt ceiling. Nobody in the room disputed Mr. Geithner’s bleak assessment, the officials said."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/white-house-rules-out-con_n_892940.html

I am glad they recognized they don't have the authority...

Just bring back up my comments on the issue from another thread.

The 14th Amendment states:
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 what does this mean...does it mean that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional? I would say not in any way....the amendment itself clearly states that such debt must be authorized by law. The Constitution is fairly clear on who is able to borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article 1 Section 8), and such power does not rest with the Executive.

Additionally, Article 1 Section 7 adds more clarity to the point by stating "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Again, meaning that the Executive simply cannot decide how much money it spends...that power clearly lies with Congress.

So, it seems fair to argue that debt, that has been authorized by law, (ie Congress) will not be questioned. It seems a stretch to me to argue that if Congress refuses (at the moment) to authorize more debt, that the Executive somehow has the power to do it for them, especially given the language is Article 1 Section 8.

Additionally, failure to raise the debt ceiling does not automatically equate to default. The Treasury Secretary is able to designate revenue first for debt payments (even if no debt limit raise occurs), and would be able to make payments, resulting in cuts in other places.

It is the ultimate false choice to argue that either Congress must cave and raise the debt limit, or the president must act dictatorially, as the Constitution allegedly authorizes him to do...but that is the argument we keep hearing. Sad really.


All of that said, you are going to sit here and tell me Democrats are serious about this issue when it took them until 3 weeks before we hit the debt ceiling to even propose an actual plan?

From the numbers I have seen being kicked around in the debt talks, neither side seems all that serious about addressing the debt and deficit issues. Most likely a deal will be reached, and the deficits will continue to rise, until ultimately we default anyway.
 
From the numbers I have seen being kicked around in the debt talks, neither side seems all that serious about addressing the debt and deficit issues. Most likely a deal will be reached, and the deficits will continue to rise, until ultimately we default anyway.

That's a pretty good prediction. Of course, both sides will continue to try to score political points with their respective bases by proposing simplistic fixes that won't work, then blaming the other side when they are rejected.

More and more, the government is beginning to resemble a bird trying to take off, only the two wings simply won't work together. While the right wing is flapping up, the left wing is flapping down, and the bird itself goes nowhere. As long as the government is divided into opposing "wings", each trying to promote a separate agenda, nothing of note is going to get done.
 
Any solution that does not include increases in revenues just can not work. It can't happen. Why would anyone believe it can?

Dropping spending to be below current levels of revenues creates an America we do not want. Already TEA Partiers are surprised at the cuts being made. They didn't expect actual real cuts to the things they wanted. They thought it would only be the other guys who got hurt.
 
The next Republican president and more control GOP house should try to get an Amendment passed that the Supreme court has the power to reject any bill that the president signs into law if it doesnt fit with the The Constitution. That includes Tax hikes as well.
 
The next Republican president and more control GOP house should try to get an Amendment passed that the Supreme court has the power to reject any bill that the president signs into law if it doesnt fit with the The Constitution. That includes Tax hikes as well.

*sigh*

Good grief. That is already the law. So, what is it you are trying to get to?
 
The next Republican president and more control GOP house should try to get an Amendment passed that the Supreme court has the power to reject any bill that the president signs into law if it doesnt fit with the The Constitution. That includes Tax hikes as well.

.....I am speechless.
 
Any solution that does not include increases in revenues just can not work. It can't happen. Why would anyone believe it can?

Dropping spending to be below current levels of revenues creates an America we do not want. Already TEA Partiers are surprised at the cuts being made. They didn't expect actual real cuts to the things they wanted. They thought it would only be the other guys who got hurt.

I was looking at some of the numbers today, and it seems there is in fact no solution at all.

The general idea is that the debt limit needs to be increased by $2.4 trillion. Now, at the same time, we are seeing proposals on both sides that amount to only $2 trillion in savings....

So, let me get this straight, the big debate in DC is not that we will balance a budget or have any hope of paying down our debt...the big debate is over whether or not we can "save" $2 trillion, so that we can spend $2.4 trillion?
 
Werbung:
I was looking at some of the numbers today, and it seems there is in fact no solution at all.

The general idea is that the debt limit needs to be increased by $2.4 trillion. Now, at the same time, we are seeing proposals on both sides that amount to only $2 trillion in savings....

So, let me get this straight, the big debate in DC is not that we will balance a budget or have any hope of paying down our debt...the big debate is over whether or not we can "save" $2 trillion, so that we can spend $2.4 trillion?

If both side would agree to a compromise (1.5 trillion in cuts from the Left, 1.5 trillion in increased revenue for the Right), we would have done more than than the 2.4 trillion.

One way only won't do it. Both together will be a good start.
 
Back
Top