Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This Is What Gets Defunded If The Treasury Has To Prioritize Payments
Business Insider ^ | 07/25/2011 | Joe Weisenthal

Posted on 07/25/2011 8:11:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

It's been assumed -- but never confirmed -- that if we hit the debt ceiling, that The Treasury could prioritize payments, continuing to make bond coupon payments and entitlements, while shutting off other spending.

The Bipartisan Policy Center has put together a presentation (.pdf) on the debt ceiling, and what prioritization would look like (via Stone Street Advisors).

These two charts show it all.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: debtceiling; funding; treasury
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-138 last
To: SeekAndFind

This thing is total nonsensical spin.

Why would you fund “defense vendor payments” but not fund military active pay? That is beyond ridiculous—why make defense vendor payments if you don’t have a military to use the stuff the vendors provide?

Also, I agree with others that Federal unemployment benefits are essentially unconstitutional (well, MORE unconstitutional than many other unconstitutional expenditures) and can, and should be shifted back to the states to deal with.

So right there, you can take $43.5 billion off of these morons’ laughable “can’t fund” list. (not fund the Justice department?—not fund the Federal courts?—uh, right, that will work . . .)


101 posted on 07/25/2011 10:09:04 AM PDT by filbert (More filbert at http://www.medary.com--GAME ON!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

172.7 billion add 5.8 billion for military and vets...bringing the total up to 178.5 billion...you still have 21.5 billion left. Our monthly revenues are 200 billion...military and vets can easily be paid with that 200 billion...[however, I wouldn’t pay unemployment benefits...]


102 posted on 07/25/2011 10:09:04 AM PDT by shield (Rev 2:9 "Woe unto those who say they are Judahites and are not, but are of the synaGOGue of Satan.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Energy
Education
HUD

Dump them.

Approx $30b savings right there.


103 posted on 07/25/2011 10:11:09 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
I think allot of them would simply fall off the Government lists.

There is a real problem with employment. Many people who have used all their benefits have now been living even tougher lives. Most are unable to find work. That is why the rel U-6 unemployment rate is so high. around 18% That means twice as many people as stated are out of work. Most are working UNDER THE TABLE if hey can, others simply are completely lost.

Remember many of these people are over 40 and 50 and can not find work, many have a spouse that works and have had to scale back their lifestyles, sometimes by losing their homes. More than four million homes have been foreclosed on since 2008. They also can not exactly take a job paying less money in another state if their spouse is making money locally. Are they to move away from the family. Can they make enough money to justify daycare and childcare costs?

The era of Obama is one of incredible pain for many people.

That being said UE benefits should be pushed back to 26 weeks. After six months we have to force the issue.

Those that are working are often forced to do more work for less money. Outside of the government worker, most people are not in the pink. Yet, most levels of government continue to pay MASSIVE benefits and salaries to their employees.

It is a very simple process. ALL government programs MUST be trimmed back. 40% of all cabinet level departments MUST BE SHUTTERRED! All other Departments, INCLUDING THE MILLITARY, MUST be cut 10%. That is real cuts! That would be if you got $10 this year, you get $9 next. If that means we leave the DMZ in Korea, so be it. They gave us Kia & LG, they can now provide for their own defense. If that means we have to pull 75% of our troops out of Europe, so be it, they are NOW required to protect themselves. The Military AND EVERY OTHER GOVRNMENT PROGRAM THAT SURVIVES, can find 10% waste in their system.

Government workers at all levels constantly yammer on about how they can make more money in the private sector. Now is their time to prove it.

This is all that is left. Unless we require the idiots on Capital Hill and the White House to live within their means, they never will. This is the opportunity of a lifetime. We must not let them put off the problem one more time. Rant off!

104 posted on 07/25/2011 10:12:07 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
The IRS confiscates money from the guy making $800 a week all year long knowing he isn't going to owe on April 15, but they don't want to give it back

Anybody making $800 and paying Federal and State INCOME taxes is a certified idiot. Most people making that kind of money have already filled out enough exemptions to bring their paycheck taxes down to zero (illegals do it big time).

The only 'taxes' they pay aren't really even taxes, per se; they're commonly called 'payroll' taxes but are actually OASD, FICA and Medicare payments.

Lastly, I'll say this: Heard on a commercial from Andrew Young to families of fouror more making less than $40K per year - "you can get EITC up to $4000! Just file!" "if you didn't file last year, file retroactively! up to three years! That's $12,000!"

105 posted on 07/25/2011 10:12:21 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson
I seriously doubt that there is the political will to cut programs like Medicaid and food stamps entirely. We have 60 million people on Medicaid and 44 million on food stamps. They represent a considerable cost driver and must be addressed. The cost drivers of our budget deficits are the entitlement programs and means tested welfare. And certainly defense spending will also have to be reduced eventually.

I wish we could eliminate the welfare state entirely, bgut the votes just aren't there to do it. It is going to take generations to undo what has been done since FDR and LBJ.

106 posted on 07/25/2011 10:12:52 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Heard on a commercial from Andrew Young to families of four or more making less than $40K per year - "you can get EITC up to $4000! Just file!" "if you didn't file last year, file retroactively! up to three years! That's $12,000!"

Yes it's no coincidence that every street corner in the 'hood sprouts at least one "fast tax" outfit from Jan to April.

107 posted on 07/25/2011 10:15:01 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I fail to see what this table tells us, since it is speculative and anyone can make up a completely different table (as freepers are now in the process of doing). I find it meaningless. Or am I missing something?


108 posted on 07/25/2011 10:19:11 AM PDT by firebrand (It's a scandal that we have not yet impeached Obama. Can we do it now? Now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Instant rioting!

Um, the military has lots of weapons, nukes even.
Unemployed have what?

Failing to pay the legions has resulted in more than one change of government in history.

109 posted on 07/25/2011 10:20:39 AM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kabar

You are right. There is not the political will to cut the Federal government’s scope of work as it has expanded into a socialist monster. And it is not just welfare for the poor - it is welfare to feed the causes and careers of the socialist elite and internationalists which is even more ravishing to the well being of the country than is the socialism for the poor.

That is why I say this “deficit reduction” game is nonsense. They are not going to be able to maintain the socialist monster they have created and there is no political will to change it.


110 posted on 07/25/2011 10:21:09 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

“I wish I could get out of the city but I just can’t afford it. I’m sure I’m not alone.”

I believe the day is soon coming when that, in retrospect, will look like a mistaken order of priorities.


111 posted on 07/25/2011 10:22:04 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: fireforeffect

But in this case you’re talking about the possibility of not only cutting unemployment benefits (believe me, I don’t think this will happen) and/or cutting veteran and active military pay as well.

If the military isn’t being paid, I doubt they’ll take up arms against the rioters, thus leaving the local LEOs and SWAT teams to quell the rioters.


112 posted on 07/25/2011 10:22:56 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf

Remember that unemployment insurance is supposed to last a certain amount of time (a few months, I believe). Anyone under the original limit of benefits should not be cut off, IMO.


113 posted on 07/25/2011 10:30:57 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
silverleaf said: "Stop allowing SS for those age 62 unless they are certified as disabled."

I think you are making an error here.

Social Security is a retirement Ponzi scheme started years ago based upon unrealistic retirement expectations. It was expanded to include disability.

I am in favor of any plan which uniformly decreases the impact of Social Security on our economy. I am not in favor of any change which justifies MORE intrusion into our lives by the federal government, as would be the case with a "disability only" change to Social Security.

There is no need to change Social Security any more than it has already been changed. Just put it on an elimination track and forget it. Let the individual states decide what they want to do about disability or anything else which should be none of the federal government's business.

I'm willing to forego any percentage of my Social Security check as long as every recipient is reduced by the same percentage. I am not willing to surrender to the federal government the opportunity to increase its ability to redistribute wealth.

114 posted on 07/25/2011 10:44:20 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Exactly. We are witnessing the implosion of the welfare state. The Dems want to keep it going a little bit longer by increasing taxes and reducing defense spending, but eventually it is a losing game.

As we can plainly see from what is going on all over Europe. But the liberals deliberately ignore what is happening in Europe like it isn't really happening, as though the rest of us are all stupid and can't see it.

115 posted on 07/25/2011 10:50:39 AM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t think this takes into account the 45-50 billion already in the treasury.


116 posted on 07/25/2011 11:05:41 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (I can't think of anything clever, so I'll just say, "Obama sucks.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative; SeekAndFind; kabar

You’re right -

I misread the data.
The $4.5 Trillion was the projected budget.

Sorry for goof-up.


117 posted on 07/25/2011 11:17:12 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
$52.8 billion.....OTHER

I don't have the details, but think Depart. of Commerce; Depart. of Interior; Depart. of Energy; HHS; FAA; Homeland Security; Federal Transportation Authority; etc. etc. What would happen to this country if each of these agencies (and the others targeted in that table like Dept. of Education) were shuttered? Pretty much: nothing. How much good have these agencies produced in their decades long histories? Pretty much: zero.

Rather than cut them to zero immediately, why not suggest a 5 year transition to operating (in 5 years) at 20% of today's run rate... Plan your priorities accordingly -- all marginal programs get cut and eliminate over that 5 year period to allow for a reasonable transition.

Just a thought.

118 posted on 07/25/2011 11:43:25 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds ("The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

On the pay now in full list replace Defense venders’ payments and unemployment payments with Active duty military pay and veterans affairs programs . Save 38.9 billion

Eliminate totally dept of education, dept. of labor, and dept. of energy save another 25 billion.

Now divide what’s left of the money proportionally based on what their percentage was of the budget among everyone not yet paid and send out checks.

No sweat.


119 posted on 07/25/2011 12:08:14 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
I thought we were discussing stopping unemployment payments and instead paying the military?

Obviously if the proposed plan was used the unemployed would not riot and the military might.

BTW: Why are military vendors funded but food/nutrition services are not? Priorities?

120 posted on 07/25/2011 12:14:43 PM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Where they really make there money is in RALs.....the beneficiaries can’t even wait for the checks....interest on that “Refund Anticipation Loan” is very hefty....


121 posted on 07/25/2011 1:25:38 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: kabar

We’ve been through this before, kabar. The Trust Funds hold non-public debt issued by the U.S. Government. You can call them IOU’s if you wish, but an IOU is just a promise to pay, as is any other debt issue.

My point, which seemed to elude you in the last exchange, is that the non-public debt can be converted to cash by having the Treasure issue public debt in its place. The non-public debt held by the Trust Fund is then canceled in exchange for the cash, which is then used to pay SS retirees. Because both types of debt are counted against the debt ceiling, the total debt outstanding remains the same.

The text you bolded (apparently so that I would see it and understand) actually states that what I’m advocating is indeed possible (...those resources will need to come from federal revenues or additional borrowing...) All I’m suggesting is that the “additional borrowing” be undertaken.


122 posted on 07/25/2011 1:26:08 PM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
"Military pay MUST be put on the list. It is a Constitutional issue."

Actually it's ALL a Constitutional Issue.

All the laws passed dealing with spending basically order the Treasury Dept to pay out the money according to the language of the legislation. I am fairly sure neither the Treasury Dept. or the President can arbitrarily pick and choose what to pay and what not to pay without being in violation of the law.

This is going to get real interesting real fast.

123 posted on 07/25/2011 1:34:06 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion
"Why are Social Security, Medicare and unemployment expenses on the “ok to pay” list? Don’t these expenses each have a dedicated funding source set aside in a lock box? That’s what Al Gore and the Dems have said for years..."


124 posted on 07/25/2011 1:38:43 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

You don’t understand what I said.

The U.S.Constitution stipulates that the government is responsible for national defense. That Constitutional requirement takes precedence over everything else.

Show me where, in the Constitution, it says the government must pay out unemployment benefits? The only reason Representatives and Senators vote for that crap is to get votes.


125 posted on 07/25/2011 1:45:21 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Redeeming the IOUs will not increase the overall federal debt, but the real question is a legal one, i.e., can the federal government borrow money to redeem the IOUs thereby momentarily going beyond the debt ceiling. I have read/heard conflicting opinions on this. If it can be done, then there is absolutely no problem in paying SS benefits until the entire $2.6 trillion SSTF runs out despite the debt ceiling. If not, then revenue from the general fund must be prioritized to make up the shortfall. I am not equipped to answer the leagal question.


126 posted on 07/25/2011 1:48:31 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
"Show me where, in the Constitution, it says the government must pay out unemployment benefits?"

You are missing the fact that one branch cannot Constitutionally ignore a law. If the law states that the Treasury must give 20 bucks to Wal-Mart for ice cream The President can't decide not to pay it. Its the law. IF he did so or ordered someone to do so he is assuming Extra-constitutional authority.

127 posted on 07/25/2011 1:56:40 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: kabar

As long as the Treasury has cash in the bank it wouldn’t be a problem, and the Treasury will have cash in the bank since receipts roll in daily.

All they need to do is cash out the IOU’s (as you seem so wont to call the non-public U.S. Treasury Debt Issues held as an asset by the Trust Funds) first, and then issue the debt later the same day, thereby restoring their own cash balance. During the interim, the debt outstanding would actually drop below the debt ceiling by the amount cashed in.

I’m happy to see, however, that you’ve come around to agreeing that the assets of the Trust Fund are real enough that they can be converted to cash so that benefits can be paid.

Now I just wish someone would actually debate the merits of what I’m proposing...so far, absolutely no takers...

Which is too bad, because I think we’d all really enjoy watching this Administration deal with cutting federal spending $600 billion between now and election day, at a rate of $40 bn a month or just over $1 bn a day. I think that’s easily doable, and would love to see the process begin in early August.

To implement it, all the House has to do is sit on its hands, while explaining the procedure to the rest of the country.


128 posted on 07/25/2011 2:03:24 PM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

>>You are missing the fact that one branch cannot Constitutionally ignore a law. If the law states that the Treasury must give 20 bucks to Wal-Mart for ice cream The President can’t decide not to pay it.<<

And you are missing the point while by law we will owe the money, in practice, you can’t pay out what you don’t have. Hence, the creditors will still have the money coming to them, perhaps even with penalties for late payment, but some will have to wait for it until we have it.

And if you’re trying to set up the case that this authorizes Obama to unilaterally issue federal debt, forget it. He’s already learned that Congress is a separate, coequal, branch of government. When he finally gets around to reading the constitution that he supposedly taught classes on as an instructor of constitutional law, he’ll discover that only the Congress can authorize new borrowing. No wiggle room in that one.


129 posted on 07/25/2011 2:11:52 PM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
And just where is he supposed to work digger

There's jobs around here.

There's a lot of folks out there who always seemed to be "out of a job" even back when Unemployment was under 6% for a decade.

Now they've learned how to get on the Disability bandwagon and never have to worry about looking for work again.

A monthly SS check and some part time work for cash and some are living nicely with no more disability that 90% of the people who drag themselves to their jobs.

130 posted on 07/25/2011 2:16:44 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Norseman
"And you are missing the point while by law we will owe the money, in practice, you can’t pay out what you don’t have."

No see neither the President nor the Treasury Branch has the power to prioritize who gets paid. No without a ruling from SCOTUS. And when the ruling comes down the POTUS will be granted extra-Constitutional authority on who to pay.

And we fall further down the slippery slope. (They'll use the Protect the full faith and credit of the USA argument...)

131 posted on 07/25/2011 2:24:33 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]



Boop His Cute Little Tootsies!

Pretty Baby Looks Innocent Now
But He'll Be Huge and Fiery Soon
Donate!


A Sponsoring FReeper
Will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor

132 posted on 07/25/2011 2:36:43 PM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom
* Aid to Israel and any other foreign aid

It took 35 posts in this thread to get to that one point. It's now up to 132 posts and no Israeli Firsters are here to castigate you.

BTW- I wholeheartedly agree.

133 posted on 07/25/2011 3:34:40 PM PDT by Sarajevo (The only reason I would take up walking is so that I could hear heavy breathing again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

But I’ll wager the Congress can suspend laws, can’t they?


134 posted on 07/25/2011 5:23:18 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

>>...neither the President nor the Treasury Branch has the power to prioritize who gets paid.<<

Says who? The Congress passes the laws and it’s the Executive Branch’s responsibility to execute those laws. No where in those laws does it stipulate any sort of priority that I’m aware of, so it would seem that the Executive has complete discretion on who to pay when, i.e., to set whatever priority they deem necessary to run the country as efficiently as possible when faced with a cash shortfall due to a lack of Congressional authority to raise money via the debt market.

If you disagree, cite some sort of source that I can read. I doubt that you’ll find one though.


135 posted on 07/25/2011 6:37:35 PM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
"But I’ll wager the Congress can suspend laws, can’t they?"

To repeal a law you must pass a law so no "CONGRESS" can't suspend a law unless they override a veto. Bottom Line the President has his say on the matter before it becomes law to repeal the law.

136 posted on 07/26/2011 12:26:40 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Great. We’re so screwed.


137 posted on 07/26/2011 12:33:00 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Norseman
"No where in those laws does it stipulate any sort of priority that I’m aware of, so it would seem that the Executive has complete discretion on who to pay when, i.e., to set whatever priority they deem necessary to run the country as efficiently as possible when faced with a cash shortfall due to a lack of Congressional authority to raise money via the debt market."

I see. OK then here is the power vested in the Executive Branch. Cite me a section that Grants the Executive the power to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. (A.K.A. Prioritize payments by picking which law NOT to follow that instructs the government to spend money in a certain fashion.)

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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."

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


138 posted on 07/26/2011 12:49:05 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-138 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson