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.

 

Why Obama cannot be allowed to raise the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Fellow ATS'ers,

I maintain that the 14th Ammendment (in regards to debt) was ALL about the Civil War. In what manner of interpretation do you believe it wasn't?

ETA:

14th Ammendment Section 4


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.



edit on 29-7-2011 by Maxmars because: added appropriate text




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Maxmars
 



The 14th Ammendment was NOT ratified and signed into law for any purpose other than to indemnify the Union for the debt of the rebellious confederate states. The sting of that unpaid debt was a message to bankers who were known to be hedging their bets during the war.

Any other interpretations of the ammendment constitutes the same abuse this 'school' of political clowns have been subjecting us to for a century.


If that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the 14th Ammendment...then YOU are interpreting that yourself.

What makes your INTERPRETATION any more valid than someone elses???


You can't claim to know the intent...if it truly was the intent, then it should of been EXPLICITLY stated in the law.


Then I say to obama (and all his minions) - do it! Do it right now!

But remember all those liberal charges that Bush was or wanted to be a dictator?

You aint seen nothing yet if obama tries this ...



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Fellow ATS'ers,

I maintian that the 14th Ammendment (in regards to debt) was ALL about the Civil War. In what manner of interpretation do you believe it wasn't?



I've been looking.

You can't find an interpretation that does not mention the Civil War issue as the reasoning behind this clause of the 14th amendment.

Obama and his followers are getting desperate and grasping for political straws. That's the only reason IMO you are seeing people suggest having obama do this.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Hold a referendum and the republicans along with their corporatist masters can kiss their ass goodbye forever.
2nd line.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Maxmars
Fellow ATS'ers,

I maintian that the 14th Ammendment (in regards to debt) was ALL about the Civil War. In what manner of interpretation do you believe it wasn't?



I've been looking.

You can't find an interpretation that does not mention the Civil War issue as the reasoning behind this clause of the 14th amendment.

Obama and his followers are getting desperate and grasping for political straws. That's the only reason IMO you are seeing people suggest having obama do this.


Oh c'mon default is a horribly bad thing. Not a right vs left thing.

We shouldn't even be having this discussion.

Knock it off with your partisan BS, we are all Americans.

Be honest about it (at least) how many times did Reagan raise it.. How about Bush? It has never been an issue.

Your argument sucks because it is a fanboy's argument.

"my side is ALWAYS right... your side is ALWAYS wrong"

Well, that makes you not only a loser but someone I can not respect. A real Man/Woman admits when either side is wrong and is responsible for it.

BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG.

grow up.
edit on 7/29/2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   


You can't claim to know the intent...if it truly was the intent, then it should of been EXPLICITLY stated in the law.


i am going to use that next time someone argues general welfare means entitlements.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

You can't claim to know the intent...if it truly was the intent, then it should of been EXPLICITLY stated in the law.


You have to admit that people take for granted that other people understand what is going in current events of the time. How many of our current laws do you think will make sense when taken out of context? It's exactly how slippery slopes are created.

In hindsight, perhaps the people of the past should have EXPLICITLY said why the amendment was created and not just assumed the meaning was obvious to the people of that day.. But how could they be faulted if they never imagined that over a hundred years later a desperate president would be urged by his desperate followers to usurp the purpose of their amendment in an attempt to rescue his own political future?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mudbeed
 


One one point we do agree... this is not about politics, this is about a bunch of lawyers looking for a "loophole."

None of them want to say it... but as much as they have "spent" or (more correctly) borrowed in our name, precious little of it went to the people. Both parties should be abolished.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



You can't claim to know the intent...if it truly was the intent, then it should of been EXPLICITLY stated in the law.


i am going to use that next time someone argues general welfare means entitlements.


But, but, but it is different for the Liberals. Didn't you know that??
It is ALWAYS different for Liberals.

This statement from Outkast should be preserved, framed and mounted.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mudbeed

BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG.

grow up.
edit on 7/29/2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)


When did I ever say both sides didn't have a hand in this mess?

I simply am saying that this isn't the way to solve the problem either. Try also aiming your argument against outkast searcher for blindly defending obama using this as the basis for taking his own action when it should be clear that this is not the right way either. Unless your comments are purely hypocritical ...

The real problem with liberals and how you can easily identify them even when they try to hide - as demonstrated by you - is the way they resort to personal attacks (early and often) when they feel a conversation or debate is not going their way. So, how about a little practice at keeping your posts on topic?


edit on 7/29/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
To those who think they know , whats going to happen next look at the patriot act and all the executive orders signed into law since JFK. A finanicial crisis is listed as a reason to implement many parts of the patriot act and many executive orders that will affect everyone and everything in america.
These laws were written for a reason, and since america has NEVER been in this position before in it's history ,this
finanicial crisis , could be considered a threat to national security.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Fellow ATS'ers,

I maintain that the 14th Ammendment (in regards to debt) was ALL about the Civil War. In what manner of interpretation do you believe it wasn't?


While the 14th Amendment was certainly created because of the Civil War aftermath, that does not limit it's purpose to that one instance. What's the point of creating an amendment to the constitution which is only useful for a snapshot moment in time? Under that premise, one could just as easily assert that the 26th Amendment was created to lower the voting age specifically for those 18+ year-old citizens voting in the 1972 election and it has no further relevance since.

IMO there is not a single "one and done" clause in the constitution. Every bit of it applies today, just as much as it did the day it was ratified.
edit on 29-7-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I see nothing in there about the Civil War stated EXPICITLY.

It is in fact open for interpretation...and you are interpreting it as it only has to do with debt incurred due to the Civil War.

But if that is the case, then I am assuming you think that Section 1 granting citizenship to those born on US soil only applies to slaves


Let's look at it broken down.


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.


Step by step now. First sentence.


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.


Broken down.


The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, ..., shall not be questioned.


That seems very simple...and it doesn't say anything about the Civil War.

Now, there is one more part of that sentence to specify what is included in the debt.


including debts incurred for payment
of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection
or rebellion


Maybe it will be eaiser to see if the sentence is rearranged.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned. This debt includes incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for servieces in suppressing insurrection of rebellion."

There is no mention it is specific to the Civil War, it only clarifies that the public debt INCLUDES those items...it will include them for any suppresion of insurections or rebellions...not just the Civil War.

And then we have the last part of the section, that states what ISN"T part of the debt.


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.




So what do we have.

Main point:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned.

Specificity of Debt:
Inclusion: including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion
Exclusion: 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.




It seems pretty clear to me that no where in any of this language does it state that it is ONLY for the Civil War. Congress would not make it an Amendment if it was ONLY for one specific purpose.

All that needs to be valid in this section for Obama to invoke it is:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned.


I will ignore that you asked me to prove the opposite of your argument, instead of you proving yourself that this Amendment was soley purposed for the Civil War debt.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



You can't claim to know the intent...if it truly was the intent, then it should of been EXPLICITLY stated in the law.


i am going to use that next time someone argues general welfare means entitlements.



You are free to...as would I.

You see...I am all about the continuing interpretation of the Constitution.

You are arguing in my favor...thanks.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



Then I say to obama (and all his minions) - do it! Do it right now!

But remember all those liberal charges that Bush was or wanted to be a dictator?

You aint seen nothing yet if obama tries this ...


Yes, I know you would say this...because this is one of the drving forces behind the Republicans complete failure to act.

They will pretend to act...draft some bills, even vote on them in the House and pass them...all along they fully know the bills they are passing have ZERO chance of passing in the Senate.

They want to force Obama to bypass them, I hope he doesn't have to. But if he does, he will wait until it is absolutely necessary and the public is crying for him to do something...and once again the Republicans will fail and look like idiots.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



But, but, but it is different for the Liberals. Didn't you know that??
It is ALWAYS different for Liberals.

This statement from Outkast should be preserved, framed and mounted.


Both of you seem to be confused.

I don't think you can know the founders or any past Congress "intent"...and even if you could...you can't apply that intent to modern times.

Which is why I am 100% for full interpretation of the Constitution...and I guess you are too.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The constitution says that the debt shall not be questioned. If the country does not pay the debt or he doesnt allow it to be paid, then he is breaking his oath to uphold the constitution.

Just because he is the president and most people here do not like him does not mean that he cannot abide by the 14th. Hes would be following the constitution, that upsets people here apparently.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a debt accumulated by theft when they didnt have money they stole social security when that ran out they started with stealing from other pensions.

and it is theft to take more from the people who have already paid their "fair share" and to take more from them is utter nonsense.

so no the 14th does not apply in more ways than one.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi
The constitution says that the debt shall not be questioned. If the country does not pay the debt or he doesnt allow it to be paid, then he is breaking his oath to uphold the constitution.

Just because he is the president and most people here do not like him does not mean that he cannot abide by the 14th. Hes would be following the constitution, that upsets people here apparently.

No, the Congress would be breaking the Oath.
The President, as you suggest, would be overstepping bounds and doing the job of Congress.
Can't see where that is lawful..



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
a debt accumulated by theft when they didnt have money they stole social security when that ran out they started with stealing from other pensions.

and it is theft to take more from the people who have already paid their "fair share" and to take more from them is utter nonsense.

so no the 14th does not apply in more ways than one.


LOL...only according to you.

When the Supreme Court makes this decision, let me know.

You can't just make up your own fantasty world and laws and expect the President to abide by those.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join