The 14th Amendment and Obama

www.examiner.com...

Democratic members of Congress - the Senate, in particular - are pleading with the Senate to have Obama invoke the 14th Amendment.

Obama says he (and his lawyers) don't read the Amendment to give him such powers. (I think it's quite a stretch to read that the President is given such power in that Amendment.)

What's your take on it?

Link has more info and the 14th Amendment quoted:
www.examiner.com...

All the 14th amendment does in this area is guarantee that the debt we incur is valid and binding. Taking the 14th and trying to stretch it will not only get the President in trouble, it would also most likely get him articles if impeachment.

Congress is constitutionally responsible for the nations purse strings, not the President.

It would be an injury to seperation of powers.

That's right. Congress has the right to invoke the 14th amendment, not the President. If Obama assumes this power unto himself, without a bill, consent of Congress, then he is out of line, and committing an impeachable offense. Remember, only the Congress has power here, and then only because We the People give them that power. These people are not our masters. This is looking more and more like a political coup.

Absolutely. This is a power delegated to Congress not the president.

Obama won't improperly use the 14th amendment, despite Congress' demands?

What a tyrant!

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Absolutely. This is a power delegated to Congress not the president.

Like declaring war is a power delegated to Congress and not the president? I wonder if a president has ever ignored that part of the Constitution, as well?

/TOA

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Obama won't improperly use the 14th amendment, despite Congress' demands? What a tyrant!

Just another step to Nazi Gerrmany!!!

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

If I were the sitting President and I was facing default and the 14th amendment became the only option...then I would take that option.

Any sane individual would do the same thing.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Obama won't improperly use the 14th amendment, despite Congress' demands? What a tyrant!

Just another step to Nazi Gerrmany!!!

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

If I were the sitting President and I was facing default if I did not use the 14th amendment because there was no other option....then I would take that option.

Any sane individual would do the same thing.

There is another option. CUT SPENDING!!!!!

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
There is another option. CUT SPENDING!!!!!

Indeed. Unfortunately, it would appear neither party is willing to really make any substantive cuts, because that would mean cuts to the defense budget, and they are both owned by the MiC.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
There is another option. CUT SPENDING!!!!!

Indeed. Unfortunately, it would appear neither party is willing to really make any substantive cuts, because that would mean cuts to the defense budget, and they are both owned by the MiC.

edit on 31-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

Don't just cut defense, cut everything. End all unconstitutional programs and departments. End all foreign bribes/aid. Get the hell out of the UN and get them the hell out of here.Bring all the troops home and close every foreign base.

IMO, At this particular point in time, it is the Tea Party/GOP who are in violation of the 14th amendment for even utilizing this nation's debt as a bargaining chip. The only pertinent part of the amendment with respect to the current debt limit situation is section 4 which states;

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.

Continue reading on Examiner.com The 14th Amendment and Obama - National Conservative | Examiner.com www.examiner.com...

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued statements with regards to section 4 in the past where they stated that much deeper connotations are implied by this section of the amendment than would be realized at face value. In other words, they were saying that not only is this nation's debt not to be challenged, but that congress should not utilize the threat of not recognizing the debt, legally incurred by the U.S., as a means by which to secure or deny other legislation.

The nation's debt is a "stand alone" issue and by law it should be handled as such. Any responsible person either pays their debts or they dispute them and seeing how disputing them is forbidden in section 4, that only leaves paying them. Therefore any threat of defaulting on our debt for any reason is a direct violation of the 14th amendment.

I'm sure that in the end, there would be opinions varying from one extreme to another but at this point, if President Obama unilaterally raised the debt limit, it would seem to me that he would be "ending" a constitutional violation, not committing one.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Absolutely. This is a power delegated to Congress not the president.

Like declaring war is a power delegated to Congress and not the president? I wonder if a president has ever ignored that part of the Constitution, as well?

/TOA

Care to point out where the President has declared a war?

While your at it review the war powers act, which is unconstitutional.

Review which branch has the ability to say no we arent going to fund the military deployment.

As President and commander in chief, he can send the military where ever he wants. Its up to Congress to decide if they are going to pay for it.

reply to post by Flatfish


Ah yes a blame the tea party excuse. Congress has had many decades to get spending under control, and they chose not to. As their bosses, the people decided not to hold them accountible, which only emboldened Congress / President to embark on a spending spree like no other.

The Tea party represents the people of the district they represent, not just people who dont like democrats or republicans.

The members of the Tea party campaigned on a platform of resonsible finances and accountability. It is absolutely not the Tea Partys fault for not going along with the typical BS political status quo in DC.

The sooner you get this through your head, the better off we all will be.

God forbid our representatives actually represent the people who sent them their, instead of special itrests.

reply to post by Flatfish


What you are ignoring in those rulings is the Constitutional authority granted to congress when it comes ot the nations debt and the ability to spend or not to spend. The Supreme Court ruling is nothing but an advisory or warning and nothing more.

Congress is responsible for the day to dayt operations of this country, not the President nor the Us Supreme Court. The 14th amendment (full faith and credit clause among others) states that States must recognize federal documents, as well as state documents and treat those documents as if they were issued in that state.

Congress is responsible for deciding what documents will be acknowledged from state to state to federal and what wont.

The 14th amendment as applied to the states is where people are confusing this argument., The debt of the United States (federal) cannot be challeneged by the states, and this was set as a precident way back in the day when we were forming our new country.

The 14th amendment does not give, hint, imply, suggest, etc that the PResident can bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling himself. The power to spend money on behalf of the United States is reserved for Congress and Congress only. Until Congress decides decides to delegate that responsibility, any attempt by the presient to raise or bypass Congress is an impeachable offense, a violation of seperation of powers and an injury to seperation of powers.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Flatfish

 

What you are ignoring in those rulings is the Constitutional authority granted to congress when it comes ot the nations debt and the ability to spend or not to spend. The Supreme Court ruling is nothing but an advisory or warning and nothing more.

Congress is responsible for the day to dayt operations of this country, not the President nor the Us Supreme Court. The 14th amendment (full faith and credit clause among others) states that States must recognize federal documents, as well as state documents and treat those documents as if they were issued in that state.

Congress is responsible for deciding what documents will be acknowledged from state to state to federal and what wont.

The 14th amendment as applied to the states is where people are confusing this argument., The debt of the United States (federal) cannot be challeneged by the states, and this was set as a precident way back in the day when we were forming our new country.

The 14th amendment does not give, hint, imply, suggest, etc that the PResident can bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling himself. The power to spend money on behalf of the United States is reserved for Congress and Congress only. Until Congress decides decides to delegate that responsibility, any attempt by the presient to raise or bypass Congress is an impeachable offense, a violation of seperation of powers and an injury to seperation of powers.

FYI, Congress already voted to spend the money. Raising the debt limit is to insure that we can make timely payments on the debt we have already incurred. Furthermore, the 14th amendment doesn't say a damn thing about our debts being challenged by the states, is says "they shall not be questioned," by anyone.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Absolutely. This is a power delegated to Congress not the president.

Like declaring war is a power delegated to Congress and not the president? I wonder if a president has ever ignored that part of the Constitution, as well?

/TOA

The actual declaration is for Congress however sending in military is a very gray area within the Constitution that could easily be argued, and has been, for either the President or Congress. That is why Congress felt the need to pass the War Powers Act because the Constitution is unclear on this.

reply to post by Flatfish


You need to study the Constitution some more and quit relying on biased web sites to provide your information. Look at some Supreme Court decisions and show me where the Justices give the President a power clearly reserved for Congress.

This is one of the area's that's crystal clear in the Constitution and not open for debate. Congress has always been given control over the money as their big check and balance to the executive and judicial powers.

Xcathdra is correct that until Congress delegates this power to the President or anyone else it is completely theirs.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Obama won't improperly use the 14th amendment, despite Congress' demands? What a tyrant!

Just another step to Nazi Gerrmany!!!

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

If I were the sitting President and I was facing default if I did not use the 14th amendment because there was no other option....then I would take that option.

Any sane individual would do the same thing.

There is another option. CUT SPENDING!!!!!

There is that phrase again. - Cut Spending -
That idea is just so - alien - to the liberal way of thinking.
It nevertheless must be done!
---------
Cutting spending = Austerity Plan
Other nations have true austerity plans. Why can't we???

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Flatfish

 

You need to study the Constitution some more and quit relying on biased web sites to provide your information. Look at some Supreme Court decisions and show me where the Justices give the President a power clearly reserved for Congress.

This is one of the area's that's crystal clear in the Constitution and not open for debate. Congress has always been given control over the money as their big check and balance to the executive and judicial powers.

Xcathdra is correct that until Congress delegates this power to the President or anyone else it is completely theirs.

edit on 1-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)

Any idea why President Bill Clinton gave Obama the green light to issue an executive order
to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 Trillion?
Does Bill Clinton want Obama impeached to make way for Hillary???

No, the president does not have the powers to raise the Debt Limit by executive order because the constitution already outlines what the powers of the executive branch are in Article II.

And it doesn't say anything about even being able to issue executive orders and in section 4 of Article II I would even stretch it to the point that even the Supreme Court ruling is superseded based on the fact that the Constitution was not amended to give the president that power to issue executive orders, and the Constitution is our governing document that gives the Supreme Court and all authorities and executers of the law in the United States of America the power to uphold the Constitution and law.