Skip to comments.Every Democrat once voted “No” on 14th Amendment;now they want to twist it to make Obama our king?
Posted on 08/01/2011 9:39:44 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
Democrats have no shame, but this is a new low even for them.
Recent talk from Democrats, especially Congressional Black Caucus,(CBC) members about having Barack Obama cite imaginary powers they find in the 14th Amendment as a way to rule by fiat are just flat out hypocritical.
CBC member Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina clearly laid out the Democrats case for dumping our democracy and crowning Obama king so he can spend every last dollar we have. He said, Ive said time and time again, if the President gets up to August 2nd, without a piece of legislation, he should not allow this country to go into default. He should sign an Executive Order invoking the 14th Amendment and send that to all the governmental agencies for us to continue to pay our bills. He could do that with a stroke of a pen. Weve seen many big things done in history that way. Ive joked with my staff the other day, tell me what was the bill number of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was an Executive Order.
..Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation was made to use the federal governments power to free slaves and King Baracks Proclamation would use the federal governments power enslave us all to the government, but to Democrats thats a good thing.
the 14th Amendment giving African Americans rights to due process and equal protection under law, it did so with not a single Democratic Representatives vote
Section 4 speaks about the public debt of the United States as it related to the costs of the immediately concluded Civil War.
Section 5 brings the argument to a close for any honest person. It says, The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation ,the provisions of this article.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
What's this "invoking" crap? The 1st and 2nd need no "invoking" maneuver to make them effective. In this case, is it supposed to make it legal for their intended purpose or something? Invoking, its like Harry Potter and Herminone waving their wands and casting a spell. Or, like in Pirates of the Caribbean, "invoking" pirate Parley. The most anti-constitutional party seems intent always at finding new ways to belittle our founding document.
If the repubs would reject this in the house by siding with the conservatives, obama would have to do this. He ain’t gonna’ do it. Therefore, they could get whatever they want. obama has a birthday party to get to.
By the way, I thought muslims didn’t celebrate their birthday. Oh, that’s right. This isn’t a birthday party. It’s a fundraiser.
I would argue he can’t appropriate funds, but he can start selling assets. Start with selling the Hubble telescope ...
Just because one has the right and obligation to pay debts doesn't mean that they have the means - where does he get the damn money?
So, if they “invoke” and obama becomes the de facto “king”, how many of you will just say “ho hum” and change the channel to “American Idol”?
Remarkable apposite to reference the Emancipation Proclamation since it only covered the slaves not under US jurisdiction at the time it was issued. The EP freed not one slave in the areas outside of Union control.
The attached link doesn’t work. This one does:
Equating the present day Democrats with the 19th Century Democrats and demonizing both of them is a foolish tactic that some conservatives keep resorting to but it plays right into Marxist hands.
What do you call the most staunchly Republican region in the U.S. today?
In 1862, what did you call the great-great-grandfather of almost every present day Southern conservative Republican?
Up until 1948, what did you call the grandfather of almost every Southern conservative Republican today?
The old members of the Party of John C. Calhoun joined the Party of Lincoln a long time ago, to become one, because, whatever their 19th Century differences during the Civil War, they were still very loyal to the concept of "America" under the Constitution.
Those old Democrats became Republicans because the old Democrat Party had been taken over by the the Red Diapers Babies whose fathers and grandfathers were still in Europe learning Marxism and preaching Marxism when the original American Democrats and American Republicans were squabbling about the 14th Amendment on the other side of the Atlantic.
The modern day Democrat Party has neither 19th Century Southern American philosophical roots or 19th Century Norther American philosophical roots. It has 19th Century European Marxist roots.
Philosophically, the modern day Democrat Party is neither the Party of Abraham Lincoln nor the Party of John C. Calhoun. It is the Party of Karl Marx.
The modern Democrats do not represent the values of 19th Century American Democrats. They represent the values of 19th Century European Marxists.
The modern day Democrats figured this out very long ago which is why they have waged a campaign for decades to demonize Southerners and everything having to do with Southern history. By attacking Southern history, they attack a very large chunk of the modern day Republican base.
Yes, both the Confederacy and the Union had major defects in the 19th Century but, today, they have both joined under the tent of the GOP.
Today, the GOP tent is the last refuge of what used to be 19th Century America, both North and South.
The political enemy today is not the 19th Century American Southerner political philosophy or the 19th Century American Northerner political philosophy. Those political differences were resolved long ago and both sides are now joined under the GOP banner.
The philosophical enemy today is the 19th Century European Marxist that passed on his European political virus into the old American Democrat Party. Attacking the 19th Century Democrats of the Party of John C. Calhoun only helps the present day Democrats, the followers of the Party of Karl Marx.
The comparison to the Emancipation Proclamation ignores historical fact. Here is a brief history from Wikipedia:
Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. As such, he had the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion. He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that had not seceded: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court. To ensure the abolition of slavery everywhere in the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress passed it by the necessary 2/3 vote in February 1865 and it was ratified by the states by December 1865.
Note that the Emancipation Proclamation was a war-time effort, and only applied to states that were in rebellion against the Union, and thus did not apply to all the slaveholding states.
As far as I know, there are currently no US states in open armed rebellion against the United States, and thus the President has no CIC justification to invoke.
What would be better: to continue to pretend Washington is not an anti-constitutional treasonous conglomeration of pigs with a fake debt limiting action or permit Obammy to prove Washington is above the rule of law by killing the power of the Congress outright.
I say let him clearly show the people that their votes do not change business as usual in DC and that Washington is prefectly willing to overcome the constitution’s design of power. Let them see Chavez.
Were there a wisp of possibility to the plan, the Obamedia would be explaining nightly how it would work.
I don't see invocation of the 14th Amendment as a credible threat but I've been wrong before.