SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (109166)7/29/2011 10:19:45 PM
From: TimF2 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) of 224757
 
The 14th amendment is pretty long for a constitutional amendment, but its no really all that long. What part of -

---
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

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.

-----

says that the president is free to ignore any debt restrictions placed upon the government by law?

Its not Section 4 BTW. Even if interest on the debt was actually larger than federal revenue (and in fact its more like a tenth of federal revenue) it would be rather dubious to claim that section 4 meant the debt ceiling law was unconstitutional, and if it was unconstitutional, then congress would still constitutionally have the power of the purse, and its laws on spending and budgets would have to be obeyed until and unless they are struck down (which hasn't happened, and won't happen).

"The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned" doesn't clearly imply "the US government is constitutionally required to make payments on the debt. Its not a "the US must make its payments on time" stipulation.

But even if it was, that wouldn't matter much, since all the payments can be made on time without raising the debt ceiling. Again debt service costs are about 1/10th of federal revenue.

If your trying to twist "including debts incurred for payment of pensions" in to "the government is constitutionally required to pay for Social Security, and thus the debt limit is invalid", that's false for several reasons.

1 - The clause is "including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion". Social Security is not in payment for suppressing insurrection or rebellion.

2 - Social Security isn't a debt. The money was not borrowed from them (their tax payments where tax payments, just like your income tax payments), and they have no contractual rights to receive benefits.

3 - The government can pay Social Security, and debt service, without raising the debt ceiling.

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext