Obama:14th Amendment Unconstitutional?

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
¤
¤'s picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 92321
Posts: 18245
Obama:14th Amendment Unconstitutional?

This is a quote from the recent James Turk Interview on kingworldnews.com

"When they start QE3, the Us dollar index will plunge to new lows. Gold will also be at a record high by then as well. The scary thing is they are going to shove through this debt limit increase one way or another. If there is an impasse in Congress with Tea Party Republicans holding the line, word has come from Washington that President Obama will use the 14th amendment to declare the debt limit as unconstitutional. By removing this last piece of discipline, that will open the floodgates and will be the tipping point to send the dollar into oblivion and gold and silver into the stratosphere.”

DPH comment: That's a sickening thought regarding the 14th  amendment but seems entirely plausible given our situation and the current element that now inhabits Washington DC and masquerades as our leadership. We all know this will come down to a last minute deal or a extension at the deadline and then just ram something through that hopefully they will have read first.

IMO, Obama(Spock) has this thing with "fair' and how everything (the constitution?) was constructed to work against the most vulnerable people because it was blah blah blah etc.      He'll have his reasons.       

Listen, Obama is all about class warfare from a historical stance and was a constitutional professor at one point.  If he goes the route that Turk outlines,  O'Bummer's ego will force him to use his academic superiority on the constitution to state his case. I can easily see that happening from this Administration and his ego. They are trying real hard to fundementally steer this country into a totally different direction where the nanny state controls everything, including prices and wages. I believe that's what they are ultimately after if unemployment will never get to acceptable levels again. Competiton for jobs will cause wages to fall and a lack of stable, good paying jobs will cause people to settle for less and they will have less to pay for ever increasingly expensve goods and thats when  the Nanny steps in tocontrol and fix prices and wages. More fairness. 

You see, in their liberal world, they are always right and they will correct whats not fair and the rest of us just don't understand  the error  of our ways in letting a 200 year old document rule us. You better believe that a Constitutional lawyer and professor would be the one person in this country who would love to change what they have studied for so long and have very strong beliefs and opinions on.

Now, does anyone still think that O'bama wouldn't be the one person who would attempt this at a historic point in our countries fiscal future during a time of crisis?

Edited by admin on 11/08/2014 - 06:31

__________________

An epic lack of foresight, accuracy and humility over 3 1/2 years ago. Once a pumper, always a pumper!
http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/comment/170246#comment-170246

The man who sto...
The man who stole a leopard's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1208
Posts: 145
Let's go for a ride

LOL Obama Hard Core Cycling

cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
Obama is on firm Consitutional ground

From all available analysis, Obama is on very firm ground if he chooses to invoke the 14th Amendment.

Let's be clear: if he does so, it will be bc the Republicans have abdicated their responsibility to govern. 

We all learned in grade school that thjis country was built on the principle of compromise.  The Republicans are simply not negotiating in good faith. They are looking out for their own political well-being rather than protecting what is good for the country.  That sort of behavior actually stets to border on treason. 

I find it incredibly ironic that the conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers, who make such as huge issue about "getting back to Constitutional principles", and who use strict construction of the Constitution as a litmus test for judges, are now essentially contorting themselves to explain how, in this particular case, that approach should be abandoned.  The wording of the 14th Amendment is ridiculously clear.

And a special remark to Silver Tree:  it is exceedingly unwise to even appear to be threatening the President of the United States on a public forum.  I hope the moderators take note.

UGrev
UGrev's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 884
Posts: 168
I'm inclined to perceive

I'm inclined to perceive their stance and unwillingness to "compromise" a direct result of the millions of people who are telling them they had better not raise the ceiling. So you're right.. they want to keep their jobs or they'll be voted out as well. 

And you're absolutely correct. The 14th is ridiculously clear.. especially this part: 

"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". 

I find it hard to believe that what the Fed is doing, as a non-government entity, is not insurrectionist at minimum. Since WE THE MOTHER FUCKING PEOPLE have the power to decide, guess who gets to call the spending? WE THE MOTHER FUCKING PEOPLE. To willfully oppose this is to impose debts upon the people that we never asked for in the first place and have fought against. THIS too is ridiculously clear. 

cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment

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.

"Shall not be questioned" -- That really is not difficult to understand, and does not appear to leave a lot of "wiggle" room for people who would argue against it.

cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
The debate IS NOT about the debt ceiling per se...

It is about the US government getting its financial house in order.

THAT is what millions of people voted for. 

They DID NOT vote for a drastic and radical method of doing so: ie abandoning compromise, removing revenue as a consideration for dealing with budget deficits, and just generally negotiating in bad faith. 

The Republicans BELIEVE that if the government defaults and the economy tanks, that their political fortunes will improve.  They do not give a damn about all of the pain that is going to cause to a lot of people.  I completely understand why CEOs and people in the top 2% of wage earners vote Republican; I have never understood why the other 46-48% of people who vote Republican do so, AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS.

This debt problem has its basis in poor governing, by both parties, for decades.  But it needs to be addressed.  And being radical, and holding a gun to the head of the economy, is not good governing.  The majority of (reasonable) Americans recognize this.

UGrev
UGrev's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 884
Posts: 168
The Republicans BELIEVE that

The Republicans BELIEVE that if the government defaults and the economy tanks, that their political fortunes will improve

I'm a libertarian. I distrust both the dems and repubs..But ok.. let's play your game, because you know damn skippy that the Dem's think by raising the DC THEIR political fortunes will improve because they'll be able to spend money to infinity and people love free shit; When the free shit stops rolling, they aren't your "friends" any more and they can't lose those votes. 

I don't think the people really understand the pain that's coming if they keep spending money. There's no soft landing coming and there will be a veritable CLIFF, with a 10k drop off if we keep going down this road. I'd prefer the 5k version myself. It's still going to hurt but at a greater chance of not hurting as much for as long. 

There's a reason why we on the right constantly say "No".. when you figure that out, I'll buy you a beer and welcome you to a "Republican Form of Government". 

magis00
magis00's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 413
Posts: 108
a nit

Just wanted to jump in to say that if you're going to be a textualist and read the Constitution literally (which I'm cool with - - if the smart people who wrote it had wanted different words I'm sure they were familiar with them, right?), then you have to admit that:

"'Shall not be questioned' -- That really is not difficult to understand, and does not appear to leave a lot of 'wiggle' room for people who would argue against it."

. . .  is preceded by "[i]The validity of the public debt of the United States, [ii]authorized by law, [iii]including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion [...]".  Now, [iii] was clearly specific to 1860s-1870s Amurika and Reconstruction -- we don't have any "debts incurred ... for services in supressing insurrection or rebellion", at least not ones [ii] authorized by law.  As to [i], and here I'm with UGrev and others, both parties have failed us. 

  • Without having passed a budget in the past 2 years;
  • By "shadow banking" with the implicit (or explicit? fuckers) backing of the US Gov't;
  • By "incurring debts ... for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion" in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iran [all Unconstitutional wars];

. . . how much of our [i] "debt" is [ii] "authorized by law", again? 

You are right that there doesn't appear to be a spirit of compromise in D.C.   I see that political reality as one last chance for the system to work properly - - the "quiet majority" of this country has had it, and the pols have fewer chances day-by-day to effect a solution to this problem before "another" solution emerges on its own. 

We'll see, but I'm not real optimistic.

Anyway: 

Happy Friday,

~Magis

magis00
magis00's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 413
Posts: 108
See also . . . Bruce Krasting's thoughts

Polls show that a majority of Americans say that both the Republicans and Democrats are doing such a poor job representing the people that a new, third party is needed.

I've repeatedly warned that there is a scripted, psuedo-war between Dems and Repubs, liberals and conservatives which is in reality a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by the powers that be to keep the American people divided and distracted. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

In fact, the Founding Fathers warned us about the threat from a two party system.

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/founding-fathers-tried-warn-us-about-threat-two-party-system

Dear Bruce (who I do hope comes around these here parts):  Word to your moms.

stepman
stepman's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 129
Posts: 11
It's the spending stupid!

Some Americans have been lulled to sleep by the constant barrage of BS coming out of the mainstream media and the WDC sound bites.  They have taken their collective "eye off the ball" and continued to elect the same old same old.  Now that some have awakened, THE TEA PARTY TYPES, they are beaten down as extremists.  Is it extreme to continue to SPEND money by printing money?  Haven't we been taught that money does not grow on trees? These legislators whom refuse to balance budgets and spend, spend, spend have GOT TO GO.  Time for Patriots to be in control of OUR future.  I suppose that when most awaken in government housing, board the government bus to work, shop at the government store, etc, etc, it will be too late. 

The time is now to cap the spending and cut the giveaways.  We have enough revenue to pay the bills but not to support the giveaways.  I could not imagine telling my creditors that I need to give to charity and not pay my bills! 

__________________

"There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” – Ludwig von Mises

cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
Get Out of Our House

I agree with you thought about the "scripted, pseudo-war between Dems/Repubs, and liberals/conservatives".

It is meant purely to divide us.

Here's a great website:

http://goooh.com/

However, in this case, it is reasonable to cast some blame on one particular party.  The repubs are being hypocritical at best.  All of the pols making hay about the debt ceiling were around when it was raised many times before.  Most were also around when spending was through the roof under administrations of BOTH parties.

kenklave
kenklave's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 574
Posts: 82
So cris, are you advocating

So cris, are you advocating for raising the debt ceiling?

BlackHawk
BlackHawk's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 3888
Posts: 1455
Cap Spending

"The time is now to cap the spending and cut the giveaways.  We have enough revenue to pay the bills but not to support the giveaways.  I could not imagine telling my creditors that I need to give to charity and not pay my bills!"

I am sure you are referring to the end of corporate farm subsidies and oil tax credits that allow Exxon to pay nothing in taxes. Perhaps you do realize that in addition to having a spending problem, the US suffers from a revenue problem? You realize that about a quarter of US children live in poverty right now, correct? Quite possibly they are related to the 20% of American workers that can't find work that pays a living wage.

Could we maybe discuss how to protect our children now instead of those imaginary grandchildren the Libertarians and Tea Bag Patriots are so fond of saving? Do we care about the least among us?

cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
I am advocating for fiscal responsibility

@kenklave:  A problem decades in the making is by definition multifactorial and will not be fixed quickly. 

We need to cut spending -- OF COURSE!

But spending includes unnecessary spending on unnecessary wars, tax giveaways to corporations etc as Black Hawk eloquently points out. 

And this nonsense about the problem NOT being a revenue problem is just crazy.  OF COURSE it is partially a revenue problem.  I think any rational person would be in favor of those amongst us who are doing well ( and I thank God that I am one of them), should help out and pay a little more.  I personally have no problem doing that.

If the "grand bargain" requires a raising of the debt ceiling, so be it.  As long as it is done in the context of a larger overall plan which gets us on the right track, and stops us from having to raise it perpetually, or for that matter, EVER AGAIN, I am fine with that.

What really burns me though is the gnawing feeling I get that one side is not negotiating in good faith.  When Obama "betrays" his base by even talking about Medicare and SS, there should be some spirit of compromise, in the hope of acting in the best interests of the nation.

magis00
magis00's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 413
Posts: 108
Cool Concept

Signed up at http://goooh.com and very interested to learn more.

To your point, I agree that the Rs are being hypocritical.  Right on cue with the goooh.com idea, right?  And I can see your point that they're being short-sighted, too.  For example, Bachman's "I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling" is what I like to hear, but doesn't leave much room for a 5-year plan to smooth the transition in the direction I (and she, presumably) want to go.  But I guess I support what the Rs are doing because it is radical, and at this moment in time I consider myself radical, if by definition a radical is:

2
: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
 
3
a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
4
slang : excellent, cool
I think that "the center" in our country is too far to the left, and that to get us back to where we are sustainable and have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" we need "radical" change.  That will look unreasonable, it will look hypocritical, whoever actually takes the actions to make that "radical" change happen will likely be committing political suicide. . . I'm not so sure we do need "more taxes" -- I would agree to different taxes.  I would agree to a flat tax, that gradually diminishes as we cut the size of the D.C. government.  I absolutely think we need less spending.  I've been in law school the past 3 years, and when I volunteer to prepare tax returns every Spring the number of illegals and lazy MoFos who collected $30,000+ (while I went to school full-time and worked part-time 20 hours/week and collected maybe $10,000) . . . that's some bullshit.  I do have a heart, I do want to take care of our veterans, and to take care of society's disadvantaged (which is what "charities" used to do, before they along with religion were subsumed by our Maternal Guardian on the Potomac), but to pay a large segment of the 49% who don't "pay taxes" to do jack shit and get high and play xBox and use their SNAP cards to buy junk food, while the rest of us work?  Nah baby nah.  I'd repeal the 16th Amendment, after we implement a flat tax.  I'd go for a national sales tax, if we eliminate income taxes altogether (FICA is criminal in my mind).  At any rate, the Rs, even if not doing the most graceful job, are at least doing something right-headed.  At least they'd better be.
kenklave
kenklave's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 574
Posts: 82
Revenue

The us brings in over two trillion per year. That is more than enough to run the federal government. There is no revenue problem. And I have no idea what your comments on children have to do with the debt ceiling. I suggest you maybe spend some more time on the blog and reading other sources as it appears you do not grasp the gravity of the present situation. Take heed of the blog's stated purpose, do some more reading and perhaps you will break free from your political shell.

cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
$2 trillion sounds like a lot, doesn't it?

As a proportion of inflation adjusted dollars to GDP, tax revenues are near 60 year lows.

kenklave
kenklave's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 574
Posts: 82
Revenue/Spending Dynamic

Cris, the very definition of "deficit" is the gap between revenue and expenditures.  It makes no difference to the deficit if revenues rise along with expenditures.  If the US brings in 4 trillion next year and spends 6 trillion the deficit got worse.  You assume that by raising revenue the deficit will necessarily be reduced.  That is false.  The only way increased revenue will reduce the deficit is if expenditures remain static or fall.  And when has that ever occurred?  Of course if revenues rise faster than expenditures, that would also reduce the deficit.  No such scenario would last long enough to make a difference.

As for your comment about "rational" people should "help out" and pay more, that is utter bilge.  Do you, cris, since you are a fortunate soul, employ a professional to do your taxes? Did you itemize?  I'm sure you took the personal exemption.  Why are you not paying a straight percentage?  It would be much easier.  Or do you send the treasury a little something extra each year to "help out"?  No cris, you do not send the treasury a gift and you do take your tax exemptions and allowances precisely because you DO NOT like paying taxes, despite your assertion that you have "no problem" with paying a little extra.

There is absolutely no justification for giving governments more money.  They have, without fail, proven that they are poor stewards and cannot be trusted.  Giving them more money will solve nothing and in fact make the govt more odious to regular citizens. 

You also assume that any bargain reached will fix the problem.  What gives you such confidence?  And would you even know what such a compromise looks like?  I do no think so, because you do not grasp the source of the problem.  The problem is the system.  The problem is unfettered debt based dollar creation.  The problem is the debt and it will not be solved by more debt.

cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
My goodness Kenklave

Did you even read my reply??

The first sentence was that of course we have to cut spending.  I never came close to saying revenue increase alone would fix the problem.

And please don't make ANY assumption about my personal circumstances or actions.  I said I would gladly pay a higher tax rate if that was necessary.  I think I will do just fine if the tax rate is 36% or 39%.  Who likes paying taxes?  But it is a necessary evil to live in our society.  IMHO, those of us who benefit from society should not be so dogmatic as to support a mantra of "no new taxes" during a time of fiscal crisis.  I certainly don't think it is fair to take it "out of the hide" of the poor, the elderly or the otherwise disadvantaged.  Call me a foolish Christian...

As for the system, yes it is broken.  I am optimistic that Americans can do anything, as we once freed the world from fascism and went to the moon.  This is a minor bump compared to those problems -- it is merely accounting and math. 

A great start would be to get rid of the criminals in the banking system, for sure.

Tom L
Tom L's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 6766
Posts: 1339
Raising Taxes on Oil is Suicide

BlackHawk wrote:
I am sure you are referring to the end of corporate farm subsidies and oil tax credits that allow Exxon to pay nothing in taxes. Perhaps you do realize that in addition to having a spending problem, the US suffers from a revenue problem? You realize that about a quarter of US children live in poverty right now, correct? Quite possibly they are related to the 20% of American workers that can't find work that pays a living wage.

Could we maybe discuss how to protect our children now instead of those imaginary grandchildren the Libertarians and Tea Bag Patriots are so fond of saving? Do we care about the least among us?

And why do you believe that raising revenues through raising taxes will solve the problems of child poverty?  That's quite the leap of logic I see here.   So, you are advocating raising taxes on energy when energy prices are at an all-time high to pay for what, really? 

Those children who live in poverty (and right now mine would be considered one) can't afford the price of energy now as it is embedded in everything we buy (namely food, gas and electricity)... so we should raise the tax rate on the oil companies so that they can pass that cost onto me and my daughter?  I must be stupid or something but I don't see how raising my energy costs are going to provide growth for an economy moribund from too heavy a tax burden in the first place.  Lowering taxes and the costs of doing business are the only paths out of this along with the holders of our debt taking a haircut on their investments. 

The great sucking sound you hear is the money being siphoned up to the banks.  The oil industry has net margins of between, what?, 5 an 7%, not exactly a growth industry or anything.  Certainly not attracting any sexy, momentum money. 

This tired demonization of oil companies by the Left in this country is sickening.  You're at Turd's site and you don't understand how raising taxes destroys wealth creation?   Seriously?

Wow.

Ta,

__________________

-- Support bacteria, it's the only culture some people have.

Need Goats or Chickens? Say hello at: www.facebook.com/PirateDogAcres

Tom L
Tom L's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 6766
Posts: 1339
cris wrote: As a proportion

cris wrote:

As a proportion of inflation adjusted dollars to GDP, tax revenues are near 60 year lows.

And the economy can't sustain that situation.  So, what does that tell you.  It tells you the value of the GDP calculation is essentially zero.  GDP is a meaningless statistic, especially given that it counts government spending, which in this case is $1.6 trillion more than it should be, given the deficit.

You can't raise tax revenues on a moribund economy to raise revenue.  That will only destroy what's left of the economy quicker.

I'm happy for you that you feel it is your duty to pay off someone else's debt.  I'm not.  The income tax is slavery and the very mechanism by which this situation we find ourselves in was created. 

Ta,

__________________

-- Support bacteria, it's the only culture some people have.

Need Goats or Chickens? Say hello at: www.facebook.com/PirateDogAcres

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Topic locked
Syndicate contentComments for "Obama:14th Amendment Unconstitutional?"