Posted on 07/09/2011 4:42:15 PM PDT by CincyRichieRich
I cringe at the thought, mostly because it seems I'm caught inside a spy novel or a horror movie, walking upstairs with the audience yelling, "don't go up there, fool!"...no, I keep walking and climbing.
I am the American public and I'm being held at gunpoint by a president who is a communist/fascist dictator and hates this country with a passion we can't even imagine the depth. Our vanguard? Where are they, who are they? Oh, don't worry, it's folks like Chuck Grassley who is known to say lately that he just realized the 14th admendment gives Obama the ability to raise the debt ceiling to allow us to keep paying on the debt...it doesn't matter that Rush explained in the past two days there is no way we can STOP paying on it and there is no need to "raise it". Are our senators and reps so stupid as to not know this or are the vanguards truly linguini-spined deal makers with the enemy?
Where are our freshman, newly-elected folks? Have they been effectively muzzled or "belt-lined"? I think you know what I mean.
My big question to everyone in Freepland is, what will the citizenry do WHEN Obama "invokes the 14th admendment"? I predict Bray will write about it on Sunday's talk show line up. I predict trial balloons will be uncorked in unison by the MSM and their willing accomplices - oh, wait, I mean the congress who are the commie guests on the shows and their willing acomplices in the MSM will repeat in unison - that the 14th admendment likely gives Obama that authority. Is there really anyone stupid or naive enough to NOT think he'll do this? Look what he's done with the EPA so far...hear from SCOTUS lately...crickets...we have a fascist dictatorship, folks...GM, GE, all poker buddies with Obama.
excerpt:
Article I, Section 8 — the same part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to tax, appropriate, and “regulate commerce . . . among the states” (long the Left’s justification for any regulation of activity, or in the case of Obamacare, the inactivity of not buying health insurance) — also explicitly states: “The Congress shall have power to . . . borrow money on the credit of the United States.”
The 14th Amendment doesn’t affect this power one bit. It applies only to debt “authorized by law,” and as Catholic University Law School distinguished scholar John S. Baker wrote recently in NRO, “Only Congress — not the president — makes law.”
What it perhaps does do — based on one Supreme Court case — is require the Treasury Department to prioritize payment of existing debt to bondholders over other spending in the event the debt ceiling isn’t raised. So if the government finds itself short on cash, it has to keep paying the bondholders and find the necessary savings in some other part of the budget. This is exactly what conservatives like Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) have been trying to codify through legislation. As Michael McConnell, the distinguished director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, has put it, “the real effect of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment is almost the opposite of what hopeful voices in Washington are saying.”
What can We The People do? Not much.
People now look to the Supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality. If the Supremes say it’s good, then we don’t question it. And that is wrong.
The STATES entered into the contract to form a central government, so it is the STATES that must question any violations of that contract. Only the states have the power to stop Washington. And that is our only option, short of the ballot box in 2012.
As for taking to the streets with the Second Amendment in hand ... don’t try it. That would be considered an insurrection and the Usurper would LOVE to see one start. The crackdown (Holder is still the nation’s top cop, remember) would be epic and brutal.
The Amendment has its clear meaning, end of argument.
It was clearly intended to pay for debts and pensions incurred for and from the Civil war, and nothing else.
Sorry, not being smart, just saying our side is too darn stupid and spineless, not to mention uneducated to keep the country together moving forward. We see it and it's clear to us, but our side will sell us out in a heartbeat if it advances their private fiefdoms.
Let's assume for the sake of argument he does. So what? Like we have an economy now?
Obama withholding debt payments and further destroying our country will only bring on the inevitable: a revolution, complete with millions of armed men marching on the Capital, hanging the treasonous bastards (all 537 of them!) and taking our government back the way the founding fathers intended.
Frankly, I don't see the downside to that. Better we fight this battle now before our children have to.
That's a cold does of reality.
Naw, just got lucky this once.
Nah, you seem pretty wise;^)
The first sentence does not exclude non-Civil War debt.
The debt is only qualified by it having to be “authorized by law”, and also includes debt incurred for pensions and bounties paid for Northern forces in putting down the rebellion of the South—as the Civil War had just concluded a few years prior.
The second sentence DOES qualify certain debt as being related to the Civil War, even though the Civil War is not mentioned per se by that title.
I can only agree with you. No more words to add to what you have said; just agreement.
The government the Founding Fathers created was for a God fearing Judeo-Christian people with a good work ethic and morals.
They also never intended that all Americans be allowed to vote, that's why they didn't put a right to vote in the Constitution.
As a consequence of our moral decline and Constitutional Amendments giving demented degenerates voting rights, the government is dysfunctional.
Marching on the capital and kicking out Congress wont change that, and the imbeciles that vote democrat won't stand for having their right to vote taken away.
The only logical solution is for States run by free people to secede from the socialist states,set up a Capital in Texas or maybe Montana, and let the parasites in the socialist states and DC feed off each other.
Meaning what?
You said the whole section refers only to Civil War debt.The language of the first sentence does not preclude non Civil War debt, as written.Can you see why?
“I don’t think it will make a lot of difference if he does this or not. I think we’re headed for the same tough times regardless of what he does to the currency.”
Agreed. Soviet style dissolution, or 1973 Chilean style popular rejection and defiance.
No I didn't, I said that was the intent of the Amendment (in part, vis a vie clause 4).
Can you see why?
No, please elaborate.
Superb link, Paperdoll. Thanks for that. I like your tagline too!
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
You guys please read the whole amendment hey?
"It was clearly intended to pay for debts and pensions incurred for and from the Civil war, and nothing else. "
I disagree with the "and nothing else" part, Ron.
The first sentence is clear, if the debt is authorized by law, the validity of the debt cannot be questioned.
This wording has survived the time in which it was written. Therefore, for today, if ANY debt is authorized by law, the validity cannot be questioned.For a debt to be valid, it must be authorized by law. Thus, Obama cannot claim the 14th Amendment is in his favor, as Congress, by law , has authorized debt to a certain ceiling. Obama cannot arbitrarily by use of his executive power, abridge that ceiling. It requires Congress authorizing the debt with legislation.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
End of story..
Ssays “authorized by law”. That allowance is Congress’s, not his.
I agree with you, somehow, we've misinterpreted each others posts.
LOL...you're making the very same arguments I was going to make against you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.