Strict Constitutionists

[zappasguitar]

How come all the strict constitutionists on these boards aren't discussing the Democrat plan to invoke the 14th amendment to end the debt ceiling debate?

After all, the 14th does state:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

because it's an absurd interpretation and nothing but extreme reaching for the democrats. nobody is questioning the validity of the debt and it has zero to do with the debt ceiling.

 

[DamnYankee]

The operative phrase here is "authorized by law". Congress has to authorize the debt and had chosen to do so repeatedly by enacting a ceiling.

 

[DamnYankee]

Kudos to Zap for adopting the correct term "Democrat" as an adjective instead of the misnomer "Democratic".

 

[Bonestorm]

The operative phrase here is "authorized by law". Congress has to authorize the debt and had chosen to do so repeatedly by enacting a ceiling.

That's not true. The debt ceiling is a vote on whether the Congress will authorize the Treasury to pay for the debts it has previously authorized.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That's not true. The debt ceiling is a vote on whether the Congress will authorize the Treasury to pay for the debts it has previously authorized.

no it's not. the debt ceiling is the limit that congress can borrow to pay the debts it owes.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

what far left wing site did sappy get this question from...

the question is nonsense

and STY has it right, as usual dung is wrong

and sappy shows his ignorance once again...no one is questioning the validity of the US debt

another failed strawman

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i wonder if this will be a usual hit and run thread by sappy...he always runs away when he makes such a glaring mistake

 

[Bonestorm]

no it's not. the debt ceiling is the limit that congress can borrow to pay the debts it owes.

No, the debt ceiling is the limit that the U.S. Treasury can borrow to pay the money for the obligations that Congress has already authorized.

 

[DamnYankee]

i wonder if this will be a usual hit and run thread by sappy...he always runs away when he makes such a glaring mistake

He and Moot both.

 

[zappasguitar]

what far left wing site did sappy get this question from...

the question is nonsense

and STY has it right, as usual dung is wrong

and sappy shows his ignorance once again...no one is questioning the validity of the US debt

another failed strawman

What far left site?

It's the 14th amendment you incredible moron...you know...from the constitution?

I was asking a question about the 14th amendment.

But then, you are such an ignoramus, maybe you don't know...

Now...if the debt is valid...and you just admitted it is, then we have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to pay off that debt REGARDLESS of some arbitrary "ceiling" put in place.

 

[Bonestorm]

because it's an absurd interpretation and nothing but extreme reaching for the democrats. nobody is questioning the validity of the debt and it has zero to do with the debt ceiling.

Actually, if the U.S. Treasury simply ignored the debt ceiling and took on debt in excess of the debt ceiling, I'm quite certain that people would question the validity of that debt. Hence, the debt ceiling could call into question the validity of the public debt of the United States and could therefore be unconstitutional. And since you claim that this is extreme reaching by the Democrats, here is Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan and GHWB official, pushing such a plan:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What far left site?

It's the 14th amendment you incredible moron...you know...from the constitution?

I was asking a question about the 14th amendment.

But then, you are such an ignoramus, maybe you don't know...

Now...if the debt is valid...and you just admitted it is, then we have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to pay off that debt REGARDLESS of some arbitrary "ceiling" put in place.

oh, then you thought this dumb strawman up on your own....LOL

cite to one person who has questioned the validity of the US debt.

 

[DamnYankee]

Zap, you've already been pwned in the first response to your OP- even shitpile acknowledges that based on his lack of argument for or against- so stop trying to hide behind a reading comprehension problem.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i'm going to nip this sorry thread in the butt right now

by "question" - of course the meaning is to "challenge" in court the debt.

it is absolutely fucking ludicrous to believe the founders meant that citizens give up their right to hold conversations questioning the debt with anyone.

serious...massive thread fail

 

[zappasguitar]

what far left wing site did sappy get this question from...

the question is nonsense

and STY has it right, as usual dung is wrong

and sappy shows his ignorance once again...no one is questioning the validity of the US debt

another failed strawman

Try and ask a straightforward question and THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^is the response you get from Yurt.

Insults, name calling and ridicule...you'd think one who whines as much as Yurt does about threads started by trolls might try and take the high road once in a while...

But then, this is Yurt we are talking about here.

 

[zappasguitar]

oh, then you thought this dumb strawman up on your own....LOL

cite to one person who has questioned the validity of the US debt.

That is not the point.

No one has questioned the validity of the debt...are you trying to imply that is what I claimed?

 

[Bonestorm]

i'm going to nip this sorry thread in the butt right now

by "question" - of course the meaning is to "challenge" in court the debt.

it is absolutely fucking ludicrous to believe the founders meant that citizens give up their right to hold conversations questioning the debt with anyone.

serious...massive thread fail

What the fuck are you talking about?

And it's nip in the bud, not butt. It's a horticultural metaphor, not a sexual one.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That is not the point.

No one has questioned the validity of the debt...are you trying to imply that is what I claimed?

How come all the strict constitutionists on these boards aren't discussing the Democrat plan to invoke the 14th amendment to end the debt ceiling debate?

then you mention question the debt...

perhaps you should clarify what you meant, because it did look that way to me and others.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What the fuck are you talking about?

And it's nip in the bud, not butt. It's a horticultural metaphor, not a sexual one.

i meant bud, i guess butt came to mind because this thread stinks

by "question" - of course the meaning is to "challenge" in court the debt.

it is absolutely fucking ludicrous to believe the founders meant that citizens give up their right to hold conversations questioning the debt with anyone.

^ makes sense

now, what exactly did you mean by question? i explained what question means, your turn.