Best
400 Comments
Post
  • #4
    !
    Mark Levine, a talk radio host in Washington and frequent television commentator, formerly served as legislative counsel in the House of Representatives. He worked with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), on matters before the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Financial Services committees. Follow him on Twitter at @MarkLevineTalk.

    {Um.....political balderdash and hokiness in the extreme.....the "credentials" if one could call them that might as well say.....article was written by progressive liberal apologist and professional schiester.....}
  • #9
    !
    yep,just another progressive neocon lawyer doing his part to remove the republican party,i wonder what is new position as a democrat will be..i truly believe levin and his ilk are truly just progressive lackeys that have but one goal,,,to make this country a progressive/socialist cesspool
  • #31
    !
    @MongoAPillager You say "another progressive neocon lawyer"......that is like saying another "rural urban lawyer" or something. Don't you understand English?
  • #70
    !
    @harold_lloyd Hmmm.....so say Hitler or Satan is standing before telling you that you must vote and support President Hussein Obama and Obamacare.....you'd believe them?
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    Dang! Mark Levine is DEFINITELY NOT the same as Mark Levin..........like comparing Kafka to Capra in what they believe about America and values. This article does nothing to advance anything other than the same old finger-pointing.
  • #49
    !
    No, this guy is certainly not the Constitutional authority Mark Levin. This author worked with Barney Frank, the guy we have to thank, along with Christopher Dodd, for the housing and banking crisis.
  • #171
    !
    I really loved his dog book, but unfortunately, he is one of the worst dog-whistlers out there. No doubt he knows the Constitution, but we have a constitutional law expert in the WH now.
  • #6
    Talk radio host
    !
    It only matters to those who care about the Constitution of the United States. If you don't think our Representatives in Congress have to uphold their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," then you're right not to care.
  • #22
    !
    Thank you. The core TP brats that are pulling this, as well as their followers, don't understand that there IS a major difference between personal economics and governmental economics.
  • #32
    !
    Mark, if you cared about the Constitution, then you would realize that the House holds the purse strings to the government. The House was duly elected and is operating exactly how the founding fathers had intended it could and should. Now you may disagree vehemently with the actions taken by the House, but to call it un-Constitutional is balderdash, and you know it.
  • #38
    Talk radio host
    !
    @JackinVienna As you well know, the majority of the House does NOT support this tea-party minority's Government shut down. Indeed a long-standing House Rule (House Rule 22, Clause 4) requires the House to take up any Senate proposal when the House refuses to conference with the Senate on it. There is a Senate proposal to reopen the Government and avoid default that has a solid majority of 2/3 of the House Representatives behind it.(100% of the Democrats and at least 40% of the Republicans). But the House Republicans refuse to allow the House's own rules to be implemented. They passed a "temporary" measure to suspend the rules to prevent democracy from taking place there. See http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/14/house...
  • #56
    !
    @MarkLevine How is this any different than Pres. Obama suspending parts of the ACA without proper authority? Yet, when the House suggests the same it's "not negotiable".

    This is simply a bunch of stubborn brats screwing with all of us. They make the kindergarten playground look mature.
  • #59
    !
    @MarkLevine You are stating congressional procedures. Where specifically are these procedures cited in the Constitution? Was enactment of ACA unconstitutional , since it didn't follow the established congressional procedures?
  • R Load more replies

  • #30
    !
    Hate to burst you and your kind's bubble, but the ACA has parts that help ALL and NOT just in subsidies.

    Insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate with regards to gender and existing conditions.

    Insurance companies can no longer withdraw/cancel a policy simply because of a clerical error or in the middle of treatment.

    Insurance companies can no longer kick ill children off their parents policy at 18 if not in school or 23. They MUST be allowed to stay on the policy til 26.

    And that's but a SMALL part that applies to ALL.

    So, YES, it helps the middle class.
  • #39
    !
    @BenFE You forgot the part where it will save you $2500 and cost you less than your cable and phone bill! LOL...that was sarcasm.
  • #63
    !
    @BenFE company of 120000 that will be seeing a 20% rate increase. That is helping the middle class? Gee thanks. If there are issue with insurance companies resolve the issues. ACA is not fixing anything.
  • #75
    !
    @harold_lloyd I'm not going to disclose the company newsletter, but the health plan selections reflect approx. a 20% increase from 2013 rates. Earlier this year rates were expected to remain at the previous years rates.

    Prove they are not.
  • R Load more replies

  • #20
    !
    So, just WHERE is the GOP alternative to the ACA?

    oops! I forgot - the ACA is basically the GOP plan to begin with. So, just WHY is it then, that the GOP is against a GOP plan?
  • #28
    !
    @bgwh888 They haven't screwed me with a more expensive healthcare that I will be unconstitutionally be forced to buy or be fined.
  • #64
    !
    You're right, they don't give a damn one way or the other about what happens to the poor and middle class, and their actions show that very clearly.
  • #84
    !
    @BenFE the alternative is nothing off course. The pubs don't want to loose their fat contributions from the insurance and medical companies.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    The US government will have the money to pay the debt even if the debt ceiling is reached. The difference is they won't be able to borrow any more.
  • #37
    Talk radio host
    !
    @tpl You'll have to tell me which things in this article aren't "facts," since everything I cite is well documented. Is it that you just don't like it when facts are used against your ideology?
  • R Load more replies

  • #10
    !
    Boy, the liberals are getting in a tizzy.
    Hello Mr President, it's not that hard, work with Congress, just as your predecessors did and things will happen.
    This Presidents ego is trashing the country.
  • #35
    !
    And the TP BRATS isn't trashing the country?

    PLEASE!

    Isn't that WHY they changed the House rules at the 23red hour to keep anyone BUT Cantor or his designee from asking for a vote?
    Or didn't FAUX NEWS and Hannity et al bother to inform your ilk of that?
  • #170
    !
    When the House Republicans' SOLE priority is to destroy the president, what is there for him to work with them on?
  • #8
    !
    Here is the republican's way of negotiating:

    They ask can they burn your house down....You say no.

    They ask how bout burn just the top floor then...You say no.

    They ask how about just your garage..You say no.

    Then they ask to discuss what they can burn down..You still say no.

    Then they say that's not fair, your NOT negotiating.
  • #3
    !
    I agree with the intent of the 14th Amendment and that fact it must be followed, all the GOP trashing was unnecessary to article, it is exactly why we are so divided most folks will not even read the entire write-up.
  • #158
    !
    The GOP does need to be trashed. No false equivalence, no claiming that everyone is equally at fault. We have to acknowledge that it really is the Republican Party that's causing this totally unnecessary crisis.
  • #250
    !
    @Cal
    Yes you can blame both parties for this financial mess.
    The liberal-progressives are the ones that have put this country in a 17 trillion dollar fiat currency monetary mess.
  • #253
    !
    We do have to pay our debts but we can also select which ones are valid and which ones are not.
    Like for example,...we do not have to pay of any debt to the federal reserve. And right now as it stands we owe the Fed 4 trillion. Why pay them of anything at all. Reallocate those funds used to pay the Fed.
    What's the Fed gonna do...nothing.
    Then we take our precious metals back from the Fed that they are holding, ie. gold, silver, platinum, etc., and redeposit back into our govt vaults.
    Then the US president can authorize the treasury to print US treasury silver certificates and run a new competing currency to the Fed note.
  • #296
    !
    @HeresSomeTruth
    The great majority of the debt has come from conservative Republicans. The economic crash of 2008 was caused by conservative economic policy.

    And you're WRONG in your belief that we can select which debts to pay. The Constitution specifically forbids that. ALL debts that stem from any act of Congress must be paid.
  • R Load more replies

  • #26
    !
    We are in an era of manipulation, doublespeak and rationalization; both the constitution and the bible can say whatever the speaker wants it to say. There is no longer any allegiance to the truth.
  • #45
    Talk radio host
    !
    I take the Constitution literally. How do you take it? Please read the 14th Amendment and the 27th Amendment and tell me how they DON'T mean what I say they mean. I dare you to even construct an argument that differs from mine. You can't. Some portions of the Constitution are ambiguous and can be construed multiple ways. These two provisions are not.
  • #60
    !
    @MarkLevine --- I've worked in and studied human resources and human nature all my adult life....never under estimate man's ability to rationalize.
  • #219
    !
    @Memphis-Tiger Gun.Control.Does.Not.Restrict. Your.Right.To.Legally.Bear.Arm s.Unless.You.Are.Someone.Who.S hould.Not.Be.Able.To.Own.A.Gun .I.Hope.You.Are.Able.To.Read.T his.Because.It.Is.A.Simple.Con cept.To.Understand.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #24
    !
    The debt ceiling law is there to make sure there are negotiations before borrowing more.
    The President has lost his mind saying it should be automatically increased.
    What is the point of the law if that was the case?
  • #44
    Talk radio host
    !
    The debt ceiling did not exist for the first 150 years or so of American history until World War I. In fact, prior to Newt Gingrich in 1995, the debt ceiling was increased automatically whenever Congress voted to spend more than it taxed (the "Gephardt Rule"). Gingrich brought back this artificial inanity -- particularly inane since this same Congress voted to tax and spend what it did -- in order to take on Bill Clinton and shut down the Government. He famously lost that battle. And the Government wasn't shut down again. Until now.
  • #116
    !
    "In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.[3] The debt ceiling, in which an aggregate limit is applied to nearly all federal debt, was substantially established by Public Debt Acts[4][5] passed in 1939 and 1941 and subsequently amended."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unite...

    The Gephardt Rule was the inanity.
  • #14
    !
    If we default which is a big if it will be Obama's fault- he is the one who is not allowing money already aprroved to be spent. The republicans have not said don't pay the interest on the debt- they have said do not borrow more- big difference! Congress certainly has the right to say no more borrowing. As for acting unconstitutionally talk to Obama and Holder- they have it down to a science.
  • #41
    Talk radio host
    !
    There is no law that allows the President to favor one part of the public debt over another. The Fourteenth Amendment requires him not to question ANY public debt authorized by law. The debt ceiling is therefore unconstitutional. How do you interpret the Fourteenth Amendment? If you believe that the language of the Constitution is legally binding -- as I do -- you must respect what's in it. If you don't like it, you should work to amend it.
  • #71
    !
    If congress doesn't act in time, the Pres will use executive orders to stop default.

    He will be the great man who saved the economy, and the GOP will be the assholes who ignored their Constitutional duty and put us all in danger of a depression.

    That's how it will spin.
  • #175
    !
    Obama is doing nothing of the sort. And the Constitution clearly requires that ALL debts be paid, not just interest on the debt. If even a single payment of any kind is not paid, that means we've violated the Constitution and gone into default. Since it's unconstitutional to prioritize some debt obligations over others, and there's not enough revenue to cover all the spending that Congress has already authorized, any prohibition by Congress on borrowing more money is flagrantly unconstitutional.
  • #287
    !
    @MarkLevine - Economics 101 - You have to borrow money in order to incur a debt. The debt ceiling prevents the US from incurring any additional debt. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with paying off the debt or paying the interest on the debt. Not raising the debt ceiling will not result in default, since the interest payment is less than 10% of our tax revenue. Not raising the debt ceiling will have only one effect - Congress will need to rein in their spending to only the necessities.
  • #288
    !
    @Cal So it is unconstitutional not to immediately pay the nearly 17 Trillion we are in debt? That what is sounds like you are saying. If so how do you propose we do this?
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    A 'tantrum'? Like President Obama threw when he didn't succeed in guilt-tripping MORE gun laws down Americans' throats using the tragic Newtown Massacre? Different folks, different descriptions, huh? LOL
  • #34
    Talk radio host
    !
    Do you think President Obama should have threatened to shut down the Government down and defaulted on the national debt if Republicans did not pass his popular request to keep the dangerously mentally ill and terrorists from possessing assault weapons? That would have been a Democratic tantrum. Instead he accepted that he just didn't have the votes. See the difference? If you think the Republican tactics are fair and reasonable, you would have to agree that Democrats can do the same on gun control.
  • #121
    !
    @MarkLevine Here is the question. The LEGALLY DECLARED dangerously mentally ill and terrorists are ALREADY prevented from buying weapons by law. ASSAULT WEAPONS are Title III weapons, classified by the BATFE as MACHINE GUNS and already intensely regulated. You must submit to fingerprinting, photographing, extensive background check, paying a $200.00 fee to the BATFE for the right to own a MACHINE GUN, and SURRENDER your 4th Amendment rights by allowing the BATFE to come into your home, at ANY TIME of the day or night 24/7/365 to check for that ASSAULT WEAPON. ONLY SELECT FIRE WEAPONS (semi-auto, 3rd burst and FULL AUTOMATIC are assault weapons no matter how many times people call a semi-auto only an 'assault weapon'). Folks like you are asking that the American People SURRENDER their Right to Due Process in a Court of Law by allowing A SINGLE mental health practioner (like Major Nidal Hasan, for example) the right so say "this man/woman should not own a weapon" without the citizen being allowed to confront his accuser in a court of law, cross-examine the supposed expert accusing him, present witnesses in his behalf, have a trier of fact hear all the details, evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, etc. Now, there have been approximately 35 people a year shot by DANGEROUSLY MENTALLY ILL individuals each year (Source: Greg Ridgeway, PhD, Director, National Institute of Justice,'Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies', January 4, 2013, Page 1) There are approximately 8,900 people murdered each year, MOST of them inner-city drug-dealing gang-bangers who are in violation of law by being part of criminal enterprises, by being minors in possession of firearms, by being in possession of firearms in addition to being simultaneously in possession of controlled substances. The Laws don't stop them. All of the inner-cities are awash in DRUGS & GUNS no matter how many laws we pass. The issue is not one of preventing terrorists or dangerously mentally ill from buying weapons. They're already estopped from buying weapons- they don't buy them at Gun Stores, Gun Shows, Pawn Shops, etc. They obtain them illegitimately, and quite a few of them through the courtesy of Fast & Furious, a BATFE production. There also has NEVER been a MASS SHOOTING (shooting of 4 or more persons) by anyone suffering from PTSD, A TEMPORARY DISABILITY, yet the administration seeks to prevent hundreds of thousands of veterans suffering from this disability from owning weapons too. Face it. There is a CONCERTED EFFORT by the Left Wing of the Democratic Party to DISARM AMERICANS because they DON'T TRUST AMERICANS. The Left Wing of the Democratic Party wants to be THE ONLY PARTY. Your apparatchiks go around SLANDERING people like me (Hispanic), and Blacks, Asians, etc. when I'm not/we're not at the shoes of the Democratic Party licking them. I'm an Independent, thank you. I am disgusted with both Democrats and Republicans. We need more parties in this country. Both President Obama (for whom I voted regretfully AND contributed $250. to his campaign) and the Republicans are to blame for the shutdown and obstructionism. You make the MISTAKE of thinking ANY criticism of POTUS Obama means I'm a Republican. Same as many Republicans think that any criticism of Republicans means I'm in POTUS Obama's camp. YOU HAVE TUNNEL VISION. Both you and Right Wing Republicans. See the writing on the wall. NBC journalist Chuck Todd just this morning displayed statistics showing Americans are 53% LIBERTARIAN Independents.
    I DON'T OBJECT to ACA/Obamacare. I object tremendously Americans fined $95. per head in 2014, and $695. per head in 2016 if they don't subscribe. It's unAmerican and it's ridiculous to say Americans are happily embracing the program AS IF IT WERE VOLUNTARY. You're holding a gun to American's heads. "Subscribe or Pay a Heavy Penalty".
  • #134
    Talk radio host
    !
    I'm referring to semiautomatic weapons, which have been defined by law as "assault weapons."

    They can currently be legally purchased by the legally insane and Al Qaeda members on the terrorist watch list without any background check or penalty whatsoever. There are people who cannot legally fly who you and the Republican Party want to be able to legally own weapons that can fire 100 rounds with 100 quick pulls of the finger. It's crazy I know. But it's the law and you and your party support it. You would kill Bin Laden but you still want Bin Laden to have the right to shoot back and kill as many Americans as possible on his way out? It makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain why you think it should be legal and easy for the criminally insane and known terrorists to own these dangerous weapons.

    Yet even though I think your position -- and this law -- is crazy and dangerous and literally murderous, I still don't think the Democrats should shut down the Government if they cannot change the law through ordinary Constitutional means of getting a law passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress and signed by the President (or 2/3 after veto).
  • #136
    Talk radio host
    !
    (The fact that you say you're an independent doesn't change my analysis. You still either support this crazy law or are unaware that the mentally ill and terrorists can legally buy AK-47s, Uzis, and Glocks without any background checks.)
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    !
    Well said! Our healthcare system is immensely broken. Available only to the wealthy or those who are able to get their insurance through their employer. Obamacare is not a great law, but it is a good first step considering our political climate toward fixing something vastly out of kilter.

    It won't be easy fixing a system that so many make so much of a profit from, but healthcare costs are eating away at our GDP like a disease, and we must do something to rein in costs.

    The problem with healthcare (and why in most countries it is managed by government) is because unlike any other commodity on earth, people will pay ANYTHING to be well. No sector can have such a stranglehold over an economy like that.
  • #179
    !
    Wow, I didn't realize that it was Cato Institute that judged the constitutionality of laws in the United States. I was under the impression that the Supreme Court did that.
  • #197
    !
    @Cal cause the Supreme Court is infallible? And it was the Supreme Court who decided it was constitutional for them to decide the constitutionality of laws in 1803 the constitution doesn't give them that power explicitly
  • #220
    !
    I do weep at the stupidity of my countrymen. Even if it were unconstitutional- which the supreme court says it isn't -Then we should amend the constitution. Is it unconstitutional for you to have to buy car insurance? How about SSI, which is based on taxes? No, you like it when you want it, don't you. Screw what is right for society.
  • #233
    !
    @Jlope car insurance is dictated by states and another argument entirely since you can choose to not drive a car choosing to not live so you don't have to buy health insurance is not a viable option
    I do not support any federal welfare programs it should be up to the states or preferably private charities to decide how to handle them
  • #21
    !
    I'm sure many on here will confuse Mark Levine with Mark Levin (a true constitutional scholar). Both have radio shows in DC, one is a schill for this adminstration, the other is often referred to as the "Great One". Care to bet which one wrote this puff piece?
  • #176
    !
    Mark Levin refers to himself as "the Great One" and declares himself to be a constitutional scholar. That's not the same thing as actually being one.
  • #224
    !
    @Cal actually Sean hannity gave levin the title "the great one". I know, he doesn't have the constitutional scholar gravitas as Obama.
  • #101
    !
    Well written, well composed and very cogent. BTW I don't know who is speaking in the image, but based on photo analysis, the other three people do not want to be there.
  • #79
    !
    Another shit op-ed...I guess Obama can unconstitutionally select what parts of a law he can uphold and what parts he can waiver all by himself and that's ok...nice piece for a hypocrites wet dream!
  • R Load more comments...
Post