Posted on 07/30/2011 1:45:56 PM PDT by SteveH
Section 4.
“What does the 14 Amendment have to do with Obama?”
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment:
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.
The Democrat Congress-critter replied that the 14th Amendment move would be "an option" but "not preferable".
So, both the liberal NPR host and the Congress-critter were shaping the battlefield to try to convince the public that something buried in the fine print of the 14th Amendment gives POTUS the power of the purse specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution.
So, let's read what the 14th Amendment has to say about the public debt:
14th Amendment, 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.
In short, that means that the UNION debt "authorized by law" in accordance with the Constitution "shall not be questioned" but the CONFEDERATE debt UNAUTHORIZED by law in accordance with the Constitution was "illegal and void".
There is absolutely no question that any debt, up to the current debt ceiling, shall not be questioned and is legal.
However, the entire point of the debt debate is to have any debt above that ceiling , "authorized by law".
Any debt, above and beyond the current authorized debt ceiling, would be, by definition UNAUTHORIZED by law and, as per the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment, would be illegal.
If Obama tries to pervert the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment and usurps the power of the purse from Congress, he would be committing an impeachable offense.
Congress does not need SCOTUS to settle the matter. Congress just needs the political courage to impeach Obama for clearly violating one the most basic principles of the Separation of Powers under the U.S. Constituion, namely, Congress controls the purse.
Once a U.S. President takes upon himself both the power of the purse and the power of enforcement, he has declared himself to be a Dictator with even more power than a Roman Republican Dictator that was Dictator only by the express authorization of the Roman Senate.
If, however, Congress shows the backbone of a chocolate eclair, SCOTUS may reason that Congress authorized the Obama's action simply by Congress' inaction.
Why not just call it a Hugh Hefner Ceiling...or just get rid of it.
If Barry wants civil war, he’ll try raising the debt ceiling himself.
Time to reign in the Imperial Executive.
Right On! The most corrupt democracy is plainly on display.
That average guns per person is a bit low concerning me!
Key words there are “authorized by law” The President is not a lawmaker, Congress is!!!!!!!!
Therefore, he cannot act unilaterally...
“The “debt” crisis is just a warm-up for the constitutional crisis our traitor-in-chief is stewing up.”
Got that right. We must assume that a rabid cornered animal will do what comes naturally.
14th amendment makes him more equal than the rest of us. I am appalled at all the idiots in Congress who actually believe that its ok for the president to become dictator. Not only ok, but constitutional ! .... A'elian' nation
Obama and the Democrats are trying to pervert the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
See Post 22.
As with everything concerning the usurper, the Supremes would “evade” it.
Acknowledging the debt to be valid is not the same thing as giving the Executive carte blanche to spend as much money as it wants.
He**, Obama should be impeached for scaring the American public as he has done about Social Security and Medicare payments. There are many seniors whose health cannot take such worry. The president is not elected to frighten the public. Whatever else bad he has done, this is the worst. This tactic is childish, sophomoric, early campaign terrorism. It is way out of place coming from the Oval Office.
Obama has not led people to feel confident about anything, but has, rather frightened his countrymen. This is a terrible legacy he now owns, no matter how the current issue on the debt ceiling gets resolved.
History will record him as an enemy to the people's faith and peace of mind during this trying time. He has hurt millions with his innacurate accusations and fear mongering speeches. He is an evil, spiteful, vengeful little man who has no comprehension of what his role is in the White House. He has let his thin skin and need to massage his ego take precedence over the welfare of the people he is supposed to protect and reassure during times of trial. What an utter travesty he has committed.
There is no place in the White House for a man who purposely hurts his people.
If the Supreme Court were to rule on the right question, Joe Biden would be President.
IMPEACHMENT and assured as a ONE TERM POS, errrr, POTUS. =.=
How is it that idiots continue to ignore Section 5 of the 14th Amendment?!
“Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Morons....=.=
These gibbering shysters like Rosen, are merely enjoying their obama masturbation fantasies about how the scotus would vote.
ML/NJ
The Writings of James Madison - Vol. 6 (Gaillard Hunt, Ed.):
"To consider a principle, we must try its nature, and see how far it will go: in the present case, he considered the effects of the principle contended for would be pernicious. If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people."
At this critical time in the history of the Republic, created "crises" must not be allowed to bring about unconstitutional assumptions of power which threaten liberty for future generations.
See the following concluding paragraphs of an essay entitled, "Do We Have a Living Constitution?":
"Those who would use "convenience" or "frustration" as reason, or who insist that it lies within the powers of the Court (or the Congress or the Executive) to effect constitutional change, can be charged with a lack of respect for the principles on which, as Marshall wisely observed: "the whole American fabric has been erected."
"We are told that it is unreasonable - even foolish - to expect that the Framers could have written a Constitution suitable alike for a society of husbandman and a society of multinational corporations, to say nothing of one as well adapted to the age of the musket and sailing ship as to the age of intercontinental nuclear-tipped missiles. As the problems have changed, the argument goes, so must the manner in which they are confronted and solved, and the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Indeed, there is no reason to allow it to stand in the way, we are told, because the Framers intended it to be flexible. And we are told that John Marshall would support this position. But it was Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, who stated: "Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported." The United States, in this view was not intended to be a simple society of husbandmen, and Marshall Clearly saw that the Constitution empowered Congress to do what was required to meet the crises of the Republic, and to maintain the Constitutional structure intended by the Framers, changing it only when such change would be in keeping with the structure itself.
"That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure.
Our Ageless Constitution - Part VII (1987, reprinted 2008) (Publisher: W. David Stedman Associates; W. D. Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Eds.) ISBN 0-937047-01-5 (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)
"Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The President has no authority without congress enabling him to do so.
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.