If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Rep. Tim Scott (R-etard) threatens impeachment if the President uses the Constitution to rob the GOP of their debt limit hostage   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 424
    More: Asinine, impeachment  
•       •       •

5151 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2011 at 8:12 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



424 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-06 05:07:08 PM
Look at that crowd..

I don't think I've seen that many fat, old, polyester pants-wearing folks in one room since the last time I drove by a Luby's cafeteria.

They wouldn't know a debt ceiling from Ceiling Cat.
 
2011-07-06 05:10:10 PM
Good luck with that.

HOW DARE YOU USE THE CONSTITUTION, SIR! HOW DARE YOU!
 
2011-07-06 05:15:37 PM
That would be fun, impeaching the President for following the Constitution.
 
2011-07-06 05:15:44 PM
at a meeting sponsored by the Tea Party group

There's your derp.
 
2011-07-06 05:15:45 PM
He realizes that, without the support of 2/3rds of the Senate, all this is going to do is waste ti... oh I've answered my own question, haven't I?
 
2011-07-06 05:16:13 PM

markie_farkie: They wouldn't know a debt ceiling from Ceiling Cat.


If you believe AM Radio, both of them are watching you masturbate.
 
2011-07-06 05:16:16 PM

markie_farkie: I don't think I've seen that many fat, old, polyester pants-wearing folks in one room since the last time I drove by a Luby's cafeteria.


Gatorade out the nose. Thank HeySoos I don't drink soda...
 
2011-07-06 05:17:18 PM
"This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers over something this significant."

So an unconstitutional law trumps a Constitutional amendment now?

These people have gone full retard.
 
2011-07-06 05:21:13 PM
FTA
While some have asserted that the debt limit might be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, and therefore President Obama does not need congressional approval to raise it, Republicans have been quick to express skepticism over the idea.

Obama did not rule out such an option, but he did insist that the situation should not get to a place where such drastic measures would be needed.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has also said he's not aware of any White House lawyers looking into the issue


So some talking head pundit mentions that Obama might be able to do this and even though Obama hasn't said anything about doing it or showed any motion towards doing it, the Republicans fly into a furry and start screaming impeachment because he never said that he wouldn't do it. Are the Republicans so desperate to discredit this man that they have gone this far?
 
2011-07-06 05:23:47 PM

Marcus Aurelius: "This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers over something this significant."

So an unconstitutional law trumps a Constitutional amendment now?

These people have gone full retard.


Read Section 5 of the 14th...
 
2011-07-06 05:49:18 PM

ongbok: So some talking head pundit mentions that Obama might be able to do this and even though Obama hasn't said anything about doing it or showed any motion towards doing it, the Republicans fly into a furry and start screaming impeachment because he never said that he wouldn't do it. Are the Republicans so desperate to discredit this man that they have gone this far?


No, they know that the 14th Amendment argument is a loser for them (even in the Roberts Court). Therefore they are doubling down on their only strategy (holding the economy hostage via the debt limit) and threatening impeachment to try and scare Obama away from that solution.

Their aim is to blow up the economy, not to fix it. Therefore even a hint that Obama may be able to prevent them from blowing up the economy causes them to scream and howl like a trapped animal.

There are some who are trying to say that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives the Congress the ability to set a debt ceiling, but that is circular logic. Section 5 was not written to allow the Congress to invalidate Section 4 by forcing the nation to default on the debt it holds; it was written to allow the Congress to enforce sections 1-4 of the amendment.
 
2011-07-06 05:51:06 PM

Code_Archeologist: There are some who are trying to say that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives the Congress the ability to set a debt ceiling, but that is circular logic. Section 5 was not written to allow the Congress to invalidate Section 4 by forcing the nation to default on the debt it holds; it was written to allow the Congress to enforce sections 1-4 of the amendment


Meaning it gave Congress power to enforce the validity of the public debt, not to make public debt invalid, correct?
 
2011-07-06 06:00:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Code_Archeologist: There are some who are trying to say that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives the Congress the ability to set a debt ceiling, but that is circular logic. Section 5 was not written to allow the Congress to invalidate Section 4 by forcing the nation to default on the debt it holds; it was written to allow the Congress to enforce sections 1-4 of the amendment

Meaning it gave Congress power to enforce the validity of the public debt, not to make public debt invalid, correct?


Exactly. the words, they mean what they say, and they don't mean anything else.

Amendment 14 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.

Amendment 14 Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In short the Congress is NOT given the power to default on the public debt through lack of action on the budget.
 
2011-07-06 06:07:12 PM

markie_farkie: Look at that crowd..

I don't think I've seen that many fat, old, polyester pants-wearing folks in one room since the last time I drove by a Luby's cafeteria.

They wouldn't know a debt ceiling from Ceiling Cat.


Debt ceiling cat is watching you pontificate.
 
2011-07-06 06:25:16 PM

Code_Archeologist: Their aim is to blow up the economy, not to fix it.


This is clear and has been since Jan 2008. There must be NO recovery on Obama's watch, no matter HOW much damage has to happen to keep it that way.
 
2011-07-06 06:27:29 PM
Let me know when some politician in DC (or anywhere for that matter) does/says something logical, well thought out, and reasonable in regards to holding the office to whom he/she was elected. I'm assuming that they're just screeching and throwing their shiat otherwise.
 
2011-07-06 06:33:40 PM
Shoot the hostage, good tactics. Keanu approved.
 
2011-07-06 06:43:11 PM

kingoomieiii: markie_farkie: They wouldn't know a debt ceiling from Ceiling Cat.

If you believe AM Radio, both of them are watching you masturbate.


I guess I should shut my curtains.
 
2011-07-06 06:49:08 PM

ongbok: the Republicans fly into a furry


fc01.deviantart.net
 
2011-07-06 06:50:01 PM
The 14th Amendment means that congress cannot invalidate the debt. It does not mean that congress can be forced to pay it. If congress refuses to pay the debt, it is only "binding upon the conscience of the sovereign." ~ Perry v. United States, 294 US 330, 354 (1935)
 
2011-07-06 06:51:12 PM

ongbok: Are the Republicans so desperate to discredit this man that they have gone this far?


You're kidding, right? This is Oxford Debating Society level stuff compared to the last two and a half years.
 
2011-07-06 06:51:56 PM

SkinnyHead: The 14th Amendment means that congress cannot invalidate the debt. It does not mean that congress can be forced to pay it. If congress refuses to pay the debt, it is only "binding upon the conscience of the sovereign." ~ Perry v. United States, 294 US 330, 354 (1935)


GED. In Law.
 
2011-07-06 06:55:04 PM

SkinnyHead: The 14th Amendment means that congress cannot invalidate the debt. It does not mean that congress can be forced to pay it. If congress refuses to pay the debt, it is only "binding upon the conscience of the sovereign." ~ Perry v. United States, 294 US 330, 354 (1935)


Well by refusing to pay it and not acknowledging it doesn't that in fact invalidate it as far as the borrower is concerned?
 
2011-07-06 06:57:11 PM

Code_Archeologist: Amendment 14 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.


IANAL but what does this bolded phrase mean to your interpretation? Could this be a point that the repubs will go after?
 
2011-07-06 07:00:00 PM

SkinnyHead: It does not mean that congress can be forced to pay it.


Congress doesn't have to be forced. It already volunteered to. By passing a budget. Also, this may come as a shock to those who usually consider you the Richard Posner of these threads, but your cite makes no sense in the context of what Perry actually held. To quote the actual decision, "The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legal and binding character of its contracts. While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign."
 
2011-07-06 07:01:18 PM
Oh, and by the way, Counselor Skinnybrain: Did you actually READ Perry? I know you're a mewling little right-wing sycophant, but to misquote a SCOTUS ruling so pathetically is really beneath you.

For those of you with grey matter inside your skulls, here's the ACTUAL quote IN CONTEXT:

The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legal and binding character of its contracts. While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists, and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign. Lynch v. United States, supra, pp. 292 U. S. 580-582.



Which as one might easily tell (unless one had a GED in Law from Upstairs Bumfark State Laundry) has absolutely dick to do with whether or not the DEBT is "binding upon the conscience of the sovereign". That para has to do with whether the US can be sued for debts, NOT whether the 14th indicates that the debt shall not be questioned. Which, conveniently, Perry deals with in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH:

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned." While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression "the validity of the public debt" as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.


Translation: As always, SkinnyHead is a liar. And the 14th Amendment says that the US debt shall not be questioned.
 
2011-07-06 07:07:06 PM
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 it's unconstitutional to pass a law that would limit how much debt we can authorize, because the 14th amendment says that we have to honor debt that has been authorized? Makes sense, Obama.
 
2011-07-06 07:07:25 PM
The GOP didn't hesitate to vote to raise the debt limit 7 times while Bush the Younger did his damndest to run this country into the ground.
 
2011-07-06 07:08:55 PM

Lorelle: The GOP didn't hesitate to vote to raise the debt limit 7 times while Bush the Younger did his damndest to run this country into the ground.


He was white and Republican.
 
2011-07-06 07:19:47 PM

dahmers love zombie: ongbok: Are the Republicans so desperate to discredit this man that they have gone this far?

You're kidding, right? This is Oxford Debating Society level stuff compared to the last two and a half years.


This is actually something that can be heavily debated on both sides.

The way I see it, only Congress has the power to authorized spending and taxation. Article I , Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Among the various things Congress done using this clause - ended the Vietnam War (Foreign Assistance Act of 1974), changed the drinking age (National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984), and indirectly caused the Iran-Contra Scandal (by denying above-board aid to the Contras). I may not like or support all the things that Congress does with the money they collect, but it's their job and their job alone to determine who gets that money.

Whether the debt ceiling is unconstitutional or not, I don't really know. It's not the type of law I mainly studied. But Congress has control over the money supply, as affirmed in the Gold Cases. If Obama tells Geithner to raise money, Congress should still be the one to order it spent.
 
2011-07-06 07:20:37 PM

kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: It does not mean that congress can be forced to pay it.

Congress doesn't have to be forced. It already volunteered to. By passing a budget. Also, this may come as a shock to those who usually consider you the Richard Posner of these threads, but your cite makes no sense in the context of what Perry actually held. To quote the actual decision, "The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legal and binding character of its contracts. While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign."


Lynch v. United States, 292 US 571, explains what it means to be "binding upon the conscience of the sovereign."

"The contracts between a Nation and an individual are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign and have no pretensions to compulsive force. They confer no right of action independent of the sovereign will."[9] The rule that the United States may not be sued without its consent is all embracing."

That defeats the argument that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Because the 14h amendment does not compel congress to pay on the debt, the failure to authorize additional debt in order to pay existing debt cannot be seen as a violation of the 14th.
 
2011-07-06 07:20:50 PM
My favorite part of this is that the Republicans voted in a budget that they knew would require the debt ceiling to be raised, then refuse to raise the debt ceiling to pay for their own budget.

I think it makes it pretty obvious on their motivations.
 
2011-07-06 07:21:01 PM

dahmers love zombie: Translation: As always, SkinnyHead is a liar. And the 14th Amendment says that the US debt shall not be questioned.


memedepot.com
 
2011-07-06 07:24:34 PM
img836.imageshack.us
Oh crap now we have to make new signs!
 
2011-07-06 07:27:50 PM
Any attempt to refuse to raise the debt ceiling will cause immediate economic instability, not just in the American investment market, but in the European and Asian markets too. Long before any defaulting would begin. Its not an issue. The power brokers in Congress won't let it happen.
 
2011-07-06 07:27:59 PM

SkinnyHead: "The contracts between a Nation and an individual are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign and have no pretensions to compulsive force. They confer no right of action independent of the sovereign will."[9] The rule that the United States may not be sued without its consent is all embracing."


This means I can't sue the federal government unless it lets me. This says nothing about the constitutionality of a debt ceiling, nor the powers of Congress and the Executive with respect to the same as against each other. In other words, shut up.
 
2011-07-06 07:28:27 PM

SkinnyHead: kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: It does not mean that congress can be forced to pay it.

Congress doesn't have to be forced. It already volunteered to. By passing a budget. Also, this may come as a shock to those who usually consider you the Richard Posner of these threads, but your cite makes no sense in the context of what Perry actually held. To quote the actual decision, "The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legal and binding character of its contracts. While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign."

Lynch v. United States, 292 US 571, explains what it means to be "binding upon the conscience of the sovereign."

"The contracts between a Nation and an individual are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign and have no pretensions to compulsive force. They confer no right of action independent of the sovereign will."[9] The rule that the United States may not be sued without its consent is all embracing."

That defeats the argument that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. Because the 14h amendment does not compel congress to pay on the debt, the failure to authorize additional debt in order to pay existing debt cannot be seen as a violation of the 14th.


You are an idiot. Saying the US government can't be sued doesn't mean that congress can set a debt ceiling.


Ok you explain to us what does 14th amendment sec 4 mean then?
 
2011-07-06 07:29:29 PM

Somacandra: Any attempt to refuse to raise the debt ceiling will cause immediate economic instability, not just in the American investment market, but in the European and Asian markets too. Long before any defaulting would begin. Its not an issue. The power brokers in Congress won't let it happen.


You are implying Republicans care what happens to the US or the world over blaming Obama. You really think that is true?
 
2011-07-06 07:31:28 PM

Corvus: You are implying Republicans care what happens to the US or the world over blaming Obama. You really think that is true?


The people who fund their political campaigns stand to lose a great deal of money with any such instability. They certainly care about their campaign funding.
 
2011-07-06 07:34:22 PM

Somacandra: Corvus: You are implying Republicans care what happens to the US or the world over blaming Obama. You really think that is true?

The people who fund their political campaigns stand to lose a great deal of money with any such instability. They certainly care about their campaign funding.


But if they let "Obama win" they will also lose half their base.
 
2011-07-06 07:35:13 PM

Somacandra: Corvus: You are implying Republicans care what happens to the US or the world over blaming Obama. You really think that is true?

The people who fund their political campaigns stand to lose a great deal of money with any such instability. They certainly care about their campaign funding.


What they will do is let it happen and then say "It's Obama's fault for not caving into our demands!". They've used this tactici in the past.
 
2011-07-06 07:36:35 PM

serial_crusher: 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


When the congress passed a budget without raising enough in taxes to pay for the items covered then the extra debt is automatically authorized.

Are you really that stupid or just trolling?
 
2011-07-06 07:38:31 PM

kronicfeld: SkinnyHead: "The contracts between a Nation and an individual are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign and have no pretensions to compulsive force. They confer no right of action independent of the sovereign will."[9] The rule that the United States may not be sued without its consent is all embracing."

This means I can't sue the federal government unless it lets me. This says nothing about the constitutionality of a debt ceiling, nor the powers of Congress and the Executive with respect to the same as against each other. In other words, shut up.


My impression of that exchange:

Person 1: Did you read this argument about the 14th Amendment?
SkinnyHead: Yes, and it said Derek Jeter will hit 3,000 this month!
Everybody: What?
 
2011-07-06 07:43:14 PM

Corvus: What they will do is let it happen and then say "It's Obama's fault for not caving into our demands!". They've used this tactici in the past.


This. I think their hubris is genuinely at a high enough level that they think that they can skate through economic armageddon by blaming Obama, and that it will sweep them to a win in 2012. Or that the ensuing chaos is their best chance for reinstating White Jesusland. I've heard more than one Teahaddist making mouth-grunts about "having to tear down the old to start anew".
 
2011-07-06 07:47:21 PM

Somacandra: Long before any defaulting would begin. Its not an issue. The power brokers in Congress the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, and the Justified Ancients of Mu-Mu won't let it happen.


ftfy
 
2011-07-06 08:03:57 PM
Just for the record, is anyone keeping track? Has SkinnyHead ever --ever-- been right about anything?
 
2011-07-06 08:18:50 PM

kronicfeld: In other words, shut up.


He can't. If he did the backup of fecal matter in his head would cause a messy explosion.
 
2011-07-06 08:20:23 PM
If congress is trying to destroy the US and world economies by defaulting on our debts, than I think a little executive overreach is exactly what we need.

Sounds like a check and/or balance to me.
 
2011-07-06 08:22:30 PM
I don't get it, the 14th says we must pay all authorize debt, and thus, by passing a budget with a debt, they authorized the payment of said debt.

Obama will pay the debt, the GOP will complain, and the supreme will biatchslap them down if they sue.

The Constitution: it works, biatches.
 
2011-07-06 08:22:31 PM
I hope I get racist, xenophobic, and yearn for halcyon days that never existed when I get older.
 
Displayed 50 of 424 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report