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: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



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..


Um...no. The Congress passes laws...the President Executes the laws....hence the name...EXECUTIVE Branch.

If he does not execute the law, then he is breaking his Oath...you know...the Oath where he says he "I do solemnly swear 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."


But at least you now agree that an Oath would be broken...and hence the President is obligated to act. He must choose to ignore one of the laws...either don't pay the public debt or don't abide by the debt ceiling.

I'll give you three guesses which one he will go with.




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


fantasy world? didnt i hear obama say if the debt ceiling wasnt raised all thoe grand mas and grandpas wouldnt get paid?

now if there funds in social security there would be no problem paying them and that statement would have never been made.


i have a firm grasp on reality not so sure you do
edit on 29-7-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
The President, as you suggest, would be overstepping bounds and doing the job of Congress.
Can't see where that is lawful..


So you assertion is that the POTUS is only sworn to uphold certain parts of the constitution, rather than it's entirety?

The way I see it is that the President, just as congress, is sworn to uphold the constitution. If congress fails at their obligated duty under the 14th, then the onus falls upon the president to do their job for them.

I suppose that, alternatively, the president could let congress allow the default and then have the dissenting members of congress brought up on charges...but then the POTUS himself would be failing to uphold the constitution in it's entirety.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mudman21
 


the federal gov't takes over fannie and freddie.....
sells the fed all those toxic assetts it forced them to buy at face value...don't buy them back at any price!!
fed is now in the red, going under, dissolve the fed, and the treasury now has control of the new currency!

if congress defaults, against the ammendment, then the congress should be held in contempt to the constitution, tried, and lose their seats!!!!



edit on 29-7-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by macman
The President, as you suggest, would be overstepping bounds and doing the job of Congress.
Can't see where that is lawful..


So you assertion is that the POTUS is only sworn to uphold certain parts of the constitution, rather than it's entirety?

The way I see it is that the President, just as congress, is sworn to uphold the constitution. If congress fails at their obligated duty under the 14th, then the onus falls upon the president to do their job for them.

I suppose that, alternatively, the president could let congress allow the default and then have the dissenting members of congress brought up on charges...but then the POTUS himself would be failing to uphold the constitution in it's entirety.


Is the Congress in charge of the budget, or his higness Obama?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Wait a minute. Step back and take a breath. Both the President and Congress have been actively dismantling the Constitution for the last ten years. The executive branch claims the right to arbitrarily name someone an enemy combatant and take away ALL of their "gauranteed" rights. The Congressionally passed Patriot Act destroys the 4th Amendment.
Yet, now, all of a sudden, the President is using his powers to "protect and defend" the Constitution!?!
Ha!!!!!
Good one.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 




...since america has NEVER been in this position before in it's history ,this
finanicial crisis , could be considered a threat to national security.


That is just more of the dog and pony show. Not passing a budget has most definitely happened before and procedures are in place to handle it. See My thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Is the Congress in charge of the budget, or his higness Obama?


Checks & Balances...checks and balances...

So, what...if one branch of government breaks down, then the entire system is held hostage...and, because of the nature of the Constitution, is required to breakdown?

I believe section 4 of the 14th amendment is up for SCOTUS interpretation (at a minimum). But the "the validity of the public debt...shall not be questioned." part of the 14th Amendment makes it clear..."shall not be questioned".

If congress can't get their act together on the debt/default issue, then I believe our POTUS is obligated to use the 14th to rectify the situation. In fact, it's already in the constitution, for which our POTUS is sworn to uphold, as the executive (i.e., the executor of). So, if congress doesn't want their powers relegated, then they should compromise and get the job done. Otherwise, there is an equally high power that will step in and uphold his sworn duty.

My bet is that there will be compromise; however, if there is not, then it leaves our POTUS no other option...the option that, to this moment, he denounces. He doesn't wish to use it, but will be obligated to if Congress doesn't live up to their oath. If they don't and he doesn't, the they are equally guilty of betraying their respective oaths of office.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
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.

............................

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.


Oh that I would, by means of mental gymnastics, persuade myself to acquiesce to your manner of distilling meaning from constitutional amendments, perhaps I would take the devil's advocate position to amuse you, as you have I.

Alas, I must, for the devil's position is better here.

You have taken the amendment entirely out of it's historical context, apparently assuming that the framers intention was absolute, and it's contemporary spirit was to be cast aside.

For the sake of clarity, I will describe what I mean, as best I can, for you to dissemble if you so choose, or at least to offer you food for thought, if you'll pardon the presumption.

It is your contention, I believe, that the following facts do not color the amendment, as they it rightly should. That's two strikes with one swing!

------------------------------------------------------

Adopted on July 9, 1868 a mere three years after what remains STILL the bloodiest war in American history..... (Lee surrendered on April 9. 1865, five days later the President was assassinated.)

By three-fourths of the states (28 of 37)


States which ratified the amendment:
Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
Oregon (September 19, 1866)
Vermont (October 30, 1866)
Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
New York (January 10, 1867)
Kansas (January 11, 1867)
Illinois (January 15, 1867)
West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
Michigan (January 16, 1867)
Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
Maine (January 19, 1867)
Nevada (January 22, 1867)
Indiana (January 23, 1867)
Missouri (January 25, 1867)
Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
Iowa (March 16, 1868)
Arkansas (April 6, 1868, after having rejected it on December 17, 1866)
Florida (June 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 6, 1866)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)


en.wikipedia.org...
------------------------------------------------------


This alone should show you EXACTLY why this particular "fiscal" policy was set in place. The South had lost millions, and was deeply in debt.... debt which was NOT going to be honored. Care to research if those most in debt did or did not ratify the measure?

Politics is about expedient compromise between two or more powers. Trying to remove the amendment from the context which sparked its creation is rather disingenuous, at best.


And then there's this "interpretation"...


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 point of the first sentence is directly pinned on the specifically referenced "insurrection
or rebellion
" which is highlighted by specificity. It was a legal mandate that was created due to the last great war of the States. (The banks were none pleased.)




It was NOT due to the wanton fraud, waste, and abuse those thinking themselves "masters" feel they are "due." They spend our money on financial risk-taking, "our" money. ALL wealth is virtualized labor. Except for them; for them, it's Monopoly money.

Do you really think the framers would expect the government itself to refuse to reform to a state of transparent stewardship?

One thing CAN be extrapolated without bias though.

The framers could only in their wildest nightmares have conceived of the travesty of flat theater and secret deals the political arena has become. "Politics" in this country has become side-show; part of the 'Bread and Circuses' entertainment paradigm. The cause is simple and universal, it isn't about ideologies, partisanship, (which I assure you, many politicians "use" as a mask.) It's about personal gain and empire. We've seen this about a million times in movies, theater, literature, and lo, even spiritual texts. How many times must we be told of this and still think our eyes lie when we see our wealth being reduced to a 'play thing' for political showmanship?

These politicians' net worth appears to increase obscenely once in office, across both so-called parties. It's all public record. Except for any details which they have chosen not to share.... In the past five or six decades, something very ugly took root in the government. Some think it took over.

I understand that we disagree. But I think in this case your position is errant.

Respectfully, if playfully, intend....

MM
edit on 29-7-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Heeeee's gooooood.
2nd



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
what if we don't have the resources to buy the ink and paper to print the money???
and the presses have been auctioned off to the highest bidder, along with the white house and capitol hill and we still come up short??
can we default then??

I know, we ain't no where close to that, we have the means to pay our obligations, even without a debt limit raise. but, then, congress and hillary might have to park their private jets and stay home!!!
but, well, it's kind of like saying every american will buy health insurance because the law says they have to....
well, if the money isn't there, it isn't there, and so, thus, they won't be buying the health insurance!!
regardless of what the constitution says, we could default on our debt!! none of us would probably care long before that happened since most of the US would be sold underneath us, and well most would be considering the US to be dead long before that would happen, but it is concievable that it could happen....



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


We are still under a declared State of Emergency stemming from 911. In a State of Emergency, the President can pretty much do whatever he wants, including the suspension of freedoms, and civil rights, even those guaranteed in the Constitution. Do you think this could come into play with the debt crisis?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


they're groping granny at the airport, don't see why they would have a problem with borrowing more money!!
I mean, come on!! and emergency is an emergency!!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join