• #1
    Liberals in the Bachmann thread were berating her for proposing legislation that puts Americans first. I wonder what they will have to say about Pelosi encouraging obama to circumvent the Constitution. They'll probably praise her efforts. Will Pelosi be labeled a 'nut bag' by rabid liberals the same way they rabidly attacked Bachmann? I wouldn't hold my breath. So sad...
  • #4
    Really? Are the millions of people now covered under Obamacare not Americans, or they are a different class of Americans that shouldn't come first?
  • #5
    @Mogal - Will you label Pelosi a 'nut bag'? That's what Bachmann was called, simply because she's against increasing the tax burden on Americans.'Nut bag' was one of the nicer insults thrown at Bachmann. Some of the other insults were much more vicious. Truly disgusting. You should condemn all of that behavior. So sad...
  • #6
    Actually, I disagree with pelosi. I believe her strategy, kind of like bachman's, is only more partisan politics gamesmamship. I believe the President is wise to steer clear of using the 14yh amendment as it would only further
    outrage the riright.
    I'm all for the debt ceiling discussions to be tied in with spending cuts.
  • #8
    No, sane people were berating Bachmann for proposing legislation that is useless and irrelevent.

    Do you think the US should default on it's debts? how will that be putting US citizens first?
  • R Load more replies

  • #17
    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.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    ...not the President.
  • #59
    Clinton's argument was "I'll proceed to invoke the "validity of public debt" clause and force the courts to stop him me.
    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,” the critical sentence says,“shall not be questioned.”
    The Supreme Court has said in passing that those words have outlived the historical moment that gave rise to them.

    Yale law professor Balkin has argued that:“You’re not supposed to hold the validity of the public debt hostage to achieve political ends,” Mr. Balkin said. He added, though, that “Section 4 is a fail-safe that only comes into operation when everything else is exhausted.”
    “This is not a circumstance,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard,“in which the courts have any plausible point of entry.” Professor Balkin agreed.“This is largely a political question,” he said.“It is unlikely courts would decide these questions.”

    The real fact of the matter is: The president, can move quickly, but court cases take time.“At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?”“It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.”

    I don't think there is much debate as to what would happen domestically and globally should the US default on it's debt. It would be an interesting test of will to see what the courts would do.

    Legal Memo

    Published: July 24, 2011
  • #67
    @Bobolinsky - didn't Andrew Jackson already go down this road (for that matter the Cherokee Nation went down that road)? Heck, we put Jackson's face on the $20. Maybe Obama wants to be on the $1,000 (seeing as the $20 will probably go to a coin).
  • R Load more replies

  • #82
    Well again you see the mentality of Liberals. They want a dictatorship where their enlightened superiority supersedes the tax payer. We voted in those GOP congressman and we should have a voice. We did not want Obamacare(and we see today why) but did that stop Obama and Pelosi? No they rammed it through against the will of the people. Liberals always screw the middle class and pander to their welfare base.
  • #80
    So the Wicked Witch of the West is even going to show her true colors huh?
    So the Liberals think that they elected a king right?

    Well they were right when they said this Democrat Party is not your grandfather's Democrat Party

    ... it's your uncles.... Uncle Ho.
  • #63
    I think we should have a Bachman v Pelosi cage death match on PPV TV. It would entertain the masses and help pay down the national debt!
  • #72
    I was thinking the same when reading this article. Both of these women often make it impossible for the rest of womankind to be taken seriously. Sigh . . .
  • #74
    @Denizen_Kate Well Kate, Some real men know these women (sic) are twits and only got where they are one way....and being a gentleman, I can't say that
  • #49
    What difference does it make? There going to do it anyway at least her approach spares me the BS I must endure before they go ahead and do it anyway.
  • #44
    I used to wonder if there was a reason Nancy Pelosi always looks like she just finished smoking a bowl of crack in all of her photos.... then I read this..... Question answered.
  • #41
    If the debt ceiling needs raised, we should raise it. We're all paying more for goods and services than we were say 10 years ago. The Government gets no special dispensation when it comes to paying for goods and services. As for cutting spending, I'm all for it. Let's start with pork barrel spending that's added to every bill passed. How about Congressional pay for services not rendered. We should get a refund for the last 4 years. We can lower our military budget by getting rid of programs that take in money, don't produce anything and no one even knows what the hell they're supposed to be producing. Instead of sending our military to the Middle East to get blown up, why not send enough arms over there so that everyone is armed and let them figure it out. Cripes, they've only been killing each other for about a 1,000 years anyway. so why are we so arrogant to think we'll make a difference? Instead of cutting benefits for those on SSI and such, why not come up with a program that will help those return to work that can do something to make a living. Dayum! The way the system is now, once you're on SSI, you're boned for life and a victim of the system. Being trained to work at something, anything to make a living means recipients are once again productive members of society and paying taxes. Let's do something with cutting taxes also. Especially at the State level. Why in hell do I have to pay yearly taxes on my vehicle? What happened to taxation without representation? I had to pay for the vehicle, insure it, keep it repaired, licensed and everything else. What the hell did the state do for it? Don't say road taxes. That's paid for every time I pump gas. What the hell did they do for my land or home? I paid for it, insured it, kept it repaired etc. Wtf did the State do? Since I'm mentioning things that actually make sense, Congress nor the State won't say a word about them nor even consider them. They aren't partisan enough to make headlines.
  • #28
    The question should really be, why does Congress have the ability to do something that is so clearly unconstitutional by the 14th amendment? Congress does not have the power to say we're no longer going to pay our debts.
  • #19
    This whole debt limit argument is ridiculous. Once the budget is set we should pay our bills period. Lets just have this argument when setting the budget and if we can't create a budget that keeps under the debt ceiling we should just shut up and pay our bills.
  • #7
    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.

    Failing to raise the debt ceiling is unconstitutional as it would question the validity of public debt of the US.
  • #16
    @AceLuby Yeah, I just read that. I keep a copy of the Constitution with me. Could you read the section again? Where in all of that did you read that the President has the power to raise the debt? Because if you can find it, I'm blind and missed it.

    You're "proof" of saying that not raising the debt is unconstitutional would also consider this entire question and the fact that Pelosi brought this up unconstitutional--doesn't make sense. Obama himself has said wasteful spending and high debt is unpatriotic, so then why would he want to raise the limit if it is unpatriotic to have that high of a debt?
  • #21
    I don't see it, either. It's reassuring the President doesn't seem inclined to try this novel approach.
  • #25
    @LALibertarian It doesn't say that, what it says is that not paying our debts is unconstitutional. Your question should be why does Congress have the power to not pay the US debts when it clearly violates the constitution?

    Regarding what Obama said in 2006... I think we can agree that the economic situation is a 'little' different now. You play the game a lot differently when you're up by a touchdown versus down by 3. But using your same logic, why are the Republicans all about stopping the debt ceiling being raised now when the economic situation is dire, when they had no problem doing it dozens of times before?
  • #36
    @AceLuby I originally asked where does the President have the power to raise the debt limit in the Fourteenth Amendment? You gave me Section 4, which does not give any powers to the President whatsoever. Our economic situation is not any different from 2006 when Obama was campaigning to 2008 as President to 2012 Fiscal Cliff and re-election. No difference, except he has driven us down in the whole even more so. It's the same situation, just progressed in the wrong direction. The reason, I assume, Republicans aren't wanting to raise the ceiling now is because it wasn't their idea and the Presidency is not theirs. Other than that guess, I cannot answer because I'm not a Republican. But you're right, the economic situation is a dire one but enabling more debt is not the answer.
  • R Load more replies

  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #115
    Every President and every party wants to raise the debt limit. We must keep constant pressure on all party members of all party to lower the limit yearly.
  • #110
    That clause was to say that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned as in what we have assumed as debt in the past.
    That doesn't mean you can't question the validity of adding more money to the public debt before it has been added.
    Nobody is putting forward a bill to annul the debt. That would be unconstitutional and hurt our credit rating, but we can definitely limit the amount of money we allow ourselves to spend.
  • #109
    She is one reason why California is broke, all those years flying around in a jet at tax payer's expense. She's just like Obama-dictator!
  • #107
    What twits like Pelosi don't understand is that eliminating the debt ceiling is a message to all the countries that we owe money to (i.e. China) that we're reckless in our spending habits and we don't care about paying people back. Eliminate the Debt Ceiling and countries like China will call in their debt. Leave it to a liberal to come up with such a boneheaded idea...
  • #104
    Pelosi is the nutbag, a 3 bagger nutbag. Obama will have the US debt at $24T by 2016. Pelosi would have it at $24T within a year.
  • R Load more comments...