It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Trump's idea about renegotiating the national debt unconstitional?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
There is a constitutional guarantee of the payment of the debt of the United 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. [...]


Let's consider Trump's recent comments about the national debt:


Asked whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.
Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less


I think it's clear as day that Trump's proposal outlined in the article above is unconstitutional.

What is the Oath of Office taken by the President of the United States?


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


Is Trump saying that he wouldn't take his oath as president seriously at all?
edit on 6-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The debt needs to be repaid, however if the creditors agree to lower the debt that is their prerogative. Unilaterally lowering the legal debt is not permitted but if your creditors agree than what is the issue?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

No where in the constitution of the United States of America, does it say that a president cannot negotiate reasonable terms with the creditors to whom that nation owes money. Given that there would be no currency at all, without the debt raised against it when it was issued in the first place, I fail to see what the issue would be with a renegotiation.

I would like to peel Trumps face off and hang it from a flagpole, because he is the worst sort of entitled, dirty, scheming toad, a man who possesses no honour, only money. However, on this point, I cannot see where he has erred.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Why would anyone be interested in negotiating the terms of the debt when they already have contracts? What incentive would they have to take less money for their investment?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Business negotiation, finance and geo-politics.

Potentially things that your not familiar with if you are asking that question.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Creditors often let nations like Russia or Argentine default on debt instead of renegotiating the terms. If they know you can pay it they are taking nothing less. On top of that the money the government owes itself or other government institutions become parts of those budgets and nobody is renegotiating those. This is what one would call a fools errand.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: TrueBrit

My reply to both of the posters above is the same.


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. [...]


The key to my argument IMHO, is the term "validity." What does it mean? Here's a link to the definition according to Black's Law Dictionary:

thelawdictionary.org...


Definition of VALIDITY: This term Is used to signify legal sufficiency, in contradistinction to mere regularity.


I'm not an expert but my understanding of the above is the debt of the US has the equivalence of any other US law. That means that it must be followed exactly. A US president cannot unilaterally change it under any circumstances.


originally posted by: notmyrealname
Business negotiation, finance and geo-politics.

Potentially things that your not familiar with if you are asking that question.


Can you prove the analysis above is wrong? If you can't then what you just wrote is meaningless in this context.

edit on 6-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
A US president cannot unilaterally change it under any circumstances.


Did you read my reply? I said that.

Now what is the issue if the creditors agree to a reduction?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Simply there is no issue...



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Profusion
A US president cannot unilaterally change it under any circumstances.


Did you read my reply? I said that.

Now what is the issue if the creditors agree to a reduction?


The part of my reply that you quoted in your reply above wasn't directed at your reply but TrueBrit's reply.

Here's the part that pertains to your reply (the first reply of this thread):


I'm not an expert but my understanding of the above is the debt of the US has the equivalence of any other US law. That means that it must be followed exactly.


I absolutely do not believe that the amount of the debt can be lowered even if "the creditors agree to lower the debt." Why? Because of the explanation that I just gave concerning the term "validity" and its meaning in this context.

If you're going to claim that it's not unconstitutional to lower the debt because the creditors agree to do it, please give me evidence that it's legal. Without evidence outside of your opinion I won't be replying to you on this topic again.


originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Simply there is no issue...


This is a matter of law that would certainly have to be settled by the Supreme Court. If you know anything about how they operate, logic cannot be used to determine what they're going to decide.

Do you have any evidence for your opinion above?
edit on 6-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
I absolutely do not believe that the amount of the debt cannot be lowered even if "the creditors agree to lower the debt." Why? Because of the explanation that I just gave concerning the term "validity" and it's meaning in this context.

If you're going to claim that it's not unconstitutional to lower the debt because the creditors agree to do it, please give me evidence that it's legal. Without evidence outside of your opinion I won't be replying to you on this topic again.


Not that way it works. If you think it is illegal for creditors to lower a debt you need to provide legal precedent.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I think you have misunderstood the law a little here.

If validity is the issue, as long as the creditor is happy to take a cut for whatever reason, the validity of the debt remains unblemished, regardless of the total amount due, or if that total amount changes with the express permission of the creditor.

The only point at which the validity of the debt would be imperilled, is if the president refused to pay it, or to pay a lower amount, without consulting the creditors and essentially forcing them to either put up or shut up.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Profusion
I absolutely do not believe that the amount of the debt cannot be lowered even if "the creditors agree to lower the debt." Why? Because of the explanation that I just gave concerning the term "validity" and it's meaning in this context.

If you're going to claim that it's not unconstitutional to lower the debt because the creditors agree to do it, please give me evidence that it's legal. Without evidence outside of your opinion I won't be replying to you on this topic again.


Not that way it works. If you think it is illegal for creditors to lower a debt you need to provide legal precedent.


The precedent is the Constitution of the United States. There is no higher precedent.

Because I'm giving you words directly from the Constitution of the United States as evidence for my claim, you would need to give me evidence that the words that are clearly written there don't need to be followed.

The only evidence of that could be two things IMHO:

1. A court decision that says what you're claiming.

2. A historical precedence that proves that what you're claiming has happened.

Without one of those two things, you've got nothing but hypotheticals. I have words directly from the Constitution of the United States as evidence for my claim.


originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Profusion

I think you have misunderstood the law a little here.

If validity is the issue, as long as the creditor is happy to take a cut for whatever reason, the validity of the debt remains unblemished, regardless of the total amount due, or if that total amount changes with the express permission of the creditor.

The only point at which the validity of the debt would be imperilled, is if the president refused to pay it, or to pay a lower amount, without consulting the creditors and essentially forcing them to either put up or shut up.


That is your opinion on the matter. Can you provide either of the following?

1. A court decision that says what you're claiming.

2. A historical precedence that proves that what you're claiming has happened.
edit on 6-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
The precedent is the Constitution of the United States. There is no higher precedent.


The Constitution is not case law. Legal precedent on fiduciary responsibilities have been addressed at all levels of the United States justice system and you need to cite one where creditors are NOT permitted to legally lower their debt load on a creditor.


Because I'm giving you words directly from the Constitution of the United States as evidence for my claim, you would need to give me evidence that the words that are clearly written there don't need to be followed.


Do you even know how the Constitution functions? It is not a list of things the government can do, it is a list of things it cannot. Everything else is open to interpretation by the courts. The Constitution says the debt must be paid, it does not say a creditor cannot renegotiate a debt. End of story.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The debt "shall not be questioned" is the interesting part.


Wouldn't renegotiation count as questioning the debt?
edit on 6-5-2016 by Hazardous1408 because: Removed a word!



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Just wait til Trump is in the Oval office.

He'll have a pen, and a phone.


If you are really interested in unconstitutional things occurring you should check out the current presidency. Plenty to choose from.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Profusion
The precedent is the Constitution of the United States. There is no higher precedent.


The Constitution is not case law. Legal precedent on fiduciary responsibilities have been addressed at all levels of the United States justice system and you need to cite one where creditors are NOT permitted to legally lower their debt load on a creditor.


I will take the opinion of a Justice of the Supreme Court over your opinion:


“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
www.lonelyconservative.com...


“...the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.” - Justice Clarence Thomas


originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Because I'm giving you words directly from the Constitution of the United States as evidence for my claim, you would need to give me evidence that the words that are clearly written there don't need to be followed.


Do you even know how the Constitution functions? It is not a list of things the government can do, it is a list of things it cannot. Everything else is open to interpretation by the courts. The Constitution says the debt must be paid, it does not say a creditor cannot renegotiate a debt. End of story.



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. [...]


Again:

I'm not an expert but my understanding of the above is the debt of the US has the equivalence of any other US law. That means that it must be followed exactly. A US president cannot unilaterally change it under any circumstances.

We agreed about most of that. Concerning the part we disagreed about, you didn't offer one source to support any of your claims. End of story indeed. Nice chatting with you.


originally posted by: Hazardous1408
The debt "shall not be questioned" is the interesting part.


Wouldn't renegotiation count as questioning the debt?


Excellent point. I hope you'll "debate" that because I'm done here.

edit on 6-5-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
I will take the opinion of a Justice of the Supreme Court over your opinion:


Jesus Christ. Thomas was citing the First Amendment, not fiduciary law. Try to keep things in order.


Again:

I'm not an expert but my understanding of the above is the debt of the US has the equivalence of any other US law. That means that it must be followed exactly. A US president cannot unilaterally change it under any circumstances.


I said that already. You need to demonstrate that a creditor is breaking the law by negotiating a debt down. Even your article does not say it is illegal, only why would a creditor do that.


...you didn't offer one source to support any of your claims.


You are the one claiming creditors cannot negotiate debt. You need to supply the legal precedent.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I was going to say that theres another thread on this already but thats yours too...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway, I have to wonder whether someone didnt just give Trump his money.

Regardless, Ron Paul had suggested something similar but with much more detail and an actual plan as opposed to just making it up as he went along.

Ron Paul Says 1.3 Trillion Dollar Debt Owed To Federal Reserve Is Not Real! Amazing Plan To Save A T.

Debt Forgiveness Act HR 2768 - Cancel All Public Debt Held by Federal Reserve.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world...

Sadiq Khan on the verge of making history: London's first Muslim Mayor.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The National Debt belongs to the corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. Which has responsibility for it since our country incorporated in 1871. People are not owned by any corp. and tgerefore, do not owe any portion of the National Debt. The 10 square miles that makes up Washington DC are sole owners of that debt.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join