Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (18815)	7/29/2011 1:52:57 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

As I understand it if they eliminated the debt ceiling then Congress would have to approve every bond issued by the treasury. That's why they invented it. Saves them work.

To: ahhaha who wrote (18815)	7/29/2011 2:39:53 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

"How do you reimpose the ceiling once the cat's out of the bag? Reimposing at a higher level is a de facto violation of the 14th amendment." Ah, ah, you should have said "prima facie", not "de facto".

To: ahhaha who wrote (18815)	7/30/2011 10:54:11 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Concerning the 14th amendment, section 4, outside of case law interpretations, but staying strictly with the text, The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, What does "authorized by law" mean? Who determines whether debt incurred by the United States through, say, Treasury, is "authorized by law"? Which branch determines whether debt incurred is authorized by law?Who is this authority which determines "validity"? Does such authority also have the responsibility of execution, that is, to pay debt? By pay authorization, I don't mean who signs the checks. I'm a physicist so I have limited knowledge to answer these questions when groping in these murky waters. In physics, we try to make things absolutely clear through the language of mathematics. In contrast, there's no rigor in common language. So maybe some of you law dogs can help here.