Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Lonesome Road
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
Wow, I think thats a bit of a reach, but I guess we would have to see how a supreme court interprets it.
 

·
أنا واحد
Joined
·
6,631 Posts
Curious if they raised the argument when Bush was in office.
I'm not sure however Bush didn't spend more money than any president in the history of the united states during a four year term. Obama has done it in three and he spent ALOT more. Not to mention the bail out loans.

Oh I'm sorry is everything still Bush's fault? For the first two years our president had control of the house and the senate. He could have completely undone every single thing Bush did. But he didn't did he? Maybe its time for liberals to start being accountable for their own train wreak..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
<quote>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.</quote>
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv


Funny no were there does it say there can be no debt ceiling, simply says that saying a debt is invalid once a law says it is to be is not allowed. Other words, Saying we don't owe 14.3Trillion dollars once the allowed debt limit was set and law was passed to go into that debt would not be allowed. Nothing there to say we MUST go into debt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,046 Posts
Oh I'm sorry is everything still Bush's fault? For the first two years our president had control of the house and the senate. He could have completely undone every single thing Bush did. But he didn't did he? Maybe its time for liberals to start being accountable for their own train wreak..
WTF is your little response about. Not even remotely close to what I posted and no clue how you're even jumping to the conclusion I'm saying its Bush's fault. To clarify, I highly doubt the Dems declared the debt ceiling as unconstitutional when Bush raised it several times (now they are - go figure) - quite the opposite of your little rant. Also, you have to be a complete fool to think both parties do not share in this mess. You get settled in - there will be another four more years of your hero.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
STEEPOE, I hope you are wrong, but I haven't seen anyone I truly believe in yet either. :/ Seems we are always having to pick the better of two evils.
 

·
Not On My Watch
Joined
·
630 Posts
Hey at least it got them to read one part of the Constitution. I was unaware the Libs knew we had one. Kinda funny that now they are worried about something being unconstitutional.
I thought they worked off of the Communist Manifesto.
 

·
Practical Tactical
Joined
·
310 Posts
"Republican economist Bruce Bartlett argues that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and obligates the President to consider the debt ceiling null and void."

From Wikipedia

This is coming from a republican, he was mostly politically active in 80's to 90's but I don't really see what has changed in the constitution since then.

I just view this as more politicking on both sides.
 

·
Garbage Collector
Joined
·
11,363 Posts
Politics is all bull****, politicians are one step above child molester in terms of ethics.

I'd like to force the gov't to cut spending, no more welfare, no more foreign aid, cut gov't jobs except military in half. Make Congress earn $1 a year and prohibit any lobbyist's or other PAC. No campaign contributions other than the general election fund. Take the greed incentive out of politics.

Our government as a whole right now is unconstitutional.
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
So they are looking for what - another "commerce clause" interpretation?
While the public debt "authorized by law" may mean it must be paid back,
it says nothing about raising limit, only presently owed debt. And that can be
accomplished by reducing spending. Don't know why 2.2T isn't enough.
I seriously think most of our wives (sorry guys, you aint in charge of tha cash)
could do it with a surplus.

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.
 
Joined
·
209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
What you guys aren't remembering is that the debt keeps on increasing even if congress doesn't add anything new. It's still got things that automatically go up like medicare/medicaid and social security (which happen to be the the primary causes of the debt anyway.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,159 Posts
It's not even anything new it's been raised countless times before. It's all a show for the masses, and whoever not in power tries to say that this is horrible, unconstitutional, etc. Nothing new just politicians wasting our time and money, cause they all know it'll pass. If we did default the world would not be in a good spot, just look at what happened when Greece looked like it would default.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,173 Posts
Smoke and mirrors.
So the 14th says we have to pay our debts, ok. But if the Congress has 2.2 trillion to spend, the debt comes first and what is left is for current needs. Nothing in that says we have to increase spending or raise taxes. They could try something truly revolutionary for our government. Cut programs and money to be spent for anything else. Obamy cant mandate that Congress keep spending as much or more that previous years for federal programs. Perhaps they should give him no more that $250,000 for the whitehouse budget for next year. There s nothing that says his wify needs all those assistants and gov paid trips.
 

·
Semper Fi
Joined
·
222 Posts
I find it kinda funny that the article from the OP hints that the president should just declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional. Is HuffPO advocating for a dictatorship?
 

·
6 Boys and 13 Hands
Joined
·
10,346 Posts
If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
~ Thomas Jefferson
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
I find it kinda funny that the article from the OP hints that the president should just declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional. Is HuffPO advocating for a dictatorship?
Given the laws that have been passed that give the executive branch almost unlimited power during a national "state of emergency" why would the president feel any need to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional? I think there's little doubt that if congress is unable to reach an agreement on the issuance of new debt that the president would just use executive authority to do so without the approval of congress citing national security as a reason. It also isn't like the mainstream media hasn't been conditioning the entire country for this eventuality should it be needed and the mainstream media's message regarding this is 'raise it or we are totally finished as a nation.' Funny thing is TARP + other bailouts where passed and other laws broken on the same premise and doubt among most people grows daily as to whether we'd really have been finished if those things hadn't passed. I myslef am of the opinion that we should have let the banks sink.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top