Taking the 14th
"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."
14th Amendment, US Constitution
____________
14th Amendment, US Constitution
____________
Now, I'm no lawyer, which means that I generally take such statements at face value and have no knowledge of what pretzels they've been twisted into by various courts in various cases, but it seems to me that if congress can't question the validity of our public debt, then congress can't refuse to pay it or more importantly say it's only valid under a certain amount authorized by Congress after they've already deemed it legal. What do you think?
I hate to bring up the constitution at a time when the Tea Bag Patriots are pretending to worship it while claiming that those who would like to actually conform to it are "shredding it" but the situation is getting serious.
Of course this whole controversy is about "taking down" the president we elected by a good margin and replacing him with a Tea Party Republican of their choice hell bent not on reducing the debt, but killing Social Security, Medicare, all forms of welfare and any protection for the public against the health insurance cartel -- and all to make sure people like me can put an extra tank of fuel into the yacht every now and then thus creating jobs in the Bahamas and Taiwan.
After all they raised the debt ceiling every year a Republican was in office since the beginning of the Reagan administration and authorized Bush's massive debt explosion like a well disciplined private army. Remember when "debt doesn't matter" was the slogan? No? Well I do.
"Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments"says Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and he'd also be impeached if he invalidated the debt ceiling based on the 14th amendment, says Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) Talk about a poker player with a 'tell.' Might as well lay the cards on the table.
It's all about impeachment and all about finding some flimsy excuse or forcing the president into a position where they will impeach him if he does and impeach him if he doesn't. No more revolting, I guess than impeaching one for asking his secretary not to tell his wife he was having an affair. Talk about insurrection and rebellion! No sooner did we lose the Cold War gravy train then we embarked on the Cold Secession.
President Clinton of course told us recently that he wouldn't hesitate to use the 14th to raise the debt ceiling and "force the courts to stop me." You'll remember of course the attempts to impeach him on any pretext and how the talk of the "failure of the Clinton Presidency" preceded the Clinton Presidency and how he would certainly be a one term president and how his tax policies would bankrupt the economy. They hope you won't remember, of course because we're hearing the same damned bullshit again.
"I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”said Bill Clinton to The National Memo last week. No wonder slimy things like the Newt are challenging the constitutional basis for even having a Supreme Court.
Meanwhile that 3% extra tax cut I get on anything I earn over $250,000 is going to prompt me to create jobs for those struggling people now paying for the longest, most expensive wars in American history while losing their houses, jobs, medical insurance waiting for the Voodoo to kick in and save us all -- and all will be fine just in time for a Tea Party president. I can feel it in my bones.
Labels: debt ceiling, impeachment, Republicans, Tea Party
4 Comments:
Ms Spencer. Please read section 5 of the 14th amendment.
The President is correct in his assessment that a creative interpretation supported by former President Clinton will not survive a legal challenge.
Teadeecee:
I wrote the above, not Libby, so you're condescending to me this morning, not to her.
Section 4 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. . .
Section 5 states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Note that it does not state that Congress shall have the power to ignore, but rather to enforce.
Who knows what would survive a legal challenge in today's court, but In Perry v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4, voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."
Is voiding a bond the same thing as not honoring the obligation authorized by law and is it really the intent of the amendment to allow congress to spend and then to decide not to pay the note?
You tell me. I'm sure you studied constitutional law at Harvard or Yale and would have been on the Supreme Court yourself if you weren't having such a good time here, so your authority in this matter is duly noted.
Capt fogg wrote "I wrote the above, not Libby, so you're condescending to me this morning, not to her."
I read "posted by Libby Spencer at 11:39 AM" Not a word in post that it was not Ms Spencer
---------
Capt Fogg "Who knows what would survive a legal challenge in today's court,"
Agreed. One never knows until the court(s) rule. However the President made his position very clear
"Carney dismissed the concept as an "esoteric constitutional argument," but he and Obama have acknowledged that the White House consulted attorneys to determine if it was an option. Obama said Friday at a town hall meeting that he'd talked to his lawyers and they "are not persuaded that that is a winning argument."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/27/2334016/experts-disagree-on-whether-obama.html#ixzz1TMBNyf34
---------
Capt Fogg "In Perry v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4, voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."
in Perry the Court stated "The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations."
The Courts ruling did not appear to identify any role for the President, or his/her cabinet.
In addition article I, Sections 1 and 8 define the role of Congress. A creative interpretation of the 14th Amendment would conflict with these provisions (imo)
-------
Capt Fogg " You tell me. I'm sure you studied constitutional law at Harvard or Yale "
The President and his lawyers do not believe arbitrary raising the debt limit under the 14th amendment is a winning argument.
What do you know that the President and his lawyers do not know?
----------
Capt Fogg "so your authority in this matter is duly noted."
Didn't you state that "Now, I'm no lawyer"?
------------
Just a request..next time identify yourself as the blogger when posting.
I'm not claiming authority, you are and as you can see (vide supra) there's a lot of disagreement about the constitutional options, amongst people other than Miami journalists, so perhaps a little unaccustomed humility on your part would be appreciated -- just a request.
Post a Comment
<< Home