Congressional GOP's mass violations of their Oath of Office

[Richard-H]

Like if the debt ceiling being raised will pay the debt. It's just another way to raise the spending limit of these politicians and Richard H falls for it....that's laughable. What happened to the last debt ceiling being raised? Was the debt paid down, or do we have more debt. These wingnuts think we're stupid.

Raising the debt ceiling won't get us out of debt, it will keep us from defaulting on the debt.

Not raising the debt ceiling will also not get us our of debt or lower our debt in any way. It will cause us to default and a huge world wide economic collaspe that will most likely end the U.S. as a major economic power and establish China as the world predominate economic power.

May very well be that the Tea party is really controlled by the Chinese. But that theory only holds if you believe in cause & effect type thinking.

Bullshit.

It will finally force the feds to prioritize their spending and make real cuts.

You seriously don't know what the debt ceiling is.

 

[Oddball]

I was right...You're being purposefully obtuse....Just like the jackwad author of the Huff-Puffy piece in the OP.

Buh-bye.

 

[Richard-H]

Wrong...There's no constitutional mandate to support spending that breaks the bank, no mater how far you try to contort the notion.

Huff-n-Puff hack: FAIL!

The bank isn't broken until congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling.

BTW, the U.S. has been running deficits since it's inception. Sometimes massive. The Chicken little belief that suddenly our debt is at some critical breaking point is an invention of the right wing.

You have to be this dumb on purpose.

You don't have a problem with your credit limit if you control your spending...Claiming that the the federal debt can't be serviced, when they take in excess of two trillion dollars, is positively laughable.

Why is it that dumb people are always the first to call other people dumb ? Some kind of inferiority complex I guess...

Anyway, you control your debt by balancing your budget in the future. That means both cutting expenditures and increasing income. You do not control your debt by refusing to pay your current debt obligations. That tends to make things worse, much worse and rather quickly...

 

[Richard-H]

You gotta be kidding, aincha dick?

Outside of welfare, which accounts for about 1% of the federal budget, exactly what 'entitlement' debts do you think are not earned?

 

[saveliberty]

You gotta be kidding, aincha dick?

Outside of welfare, which accounts for about 1% of the federal budget, exactly what 'entitlement' debts do you think are not earned?

About anything that starts with subsidy, stamp or sharing.

 

[freedombecki]

There seems to be a distinct contradiction between the Congressional Oath of office and the fact that Congress People have taken the Norquist No-Tax Pledge:

First the Constitution states:

Article VI:
3: The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Second, the congressional Oath of Office States:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) ... that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter...

Third, the Constitution States:
Article XIV:
4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.

It seems obvious that by taking the "Norquist No-Tax Pledge", these congresspeople were lying when they swore "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"

Furthermore by refusing to increase the debt ceiling they are violating Article XIV sec. 4 and therfore violating their oath of office:
"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office"

Don't believe me? (or just don't like what your reading), have a look here:


Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Does the Norquist No-Tax Pledge Violate the Congressional Oath of Office?

While the Constitution does not directly prescribe a method for removing Congress People, other than by the house itself, it does not exclude other methods either.

It would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine removal from office for these violations:

Article III:
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

Time to get this wingnuts out of office!

These people were elected by their constituents to tell the government to stop the nutcase spending spree.

Separation of powers?

Ain't gonna happen from the bench. If your local congresscritter is not pleasing to you, organize a local impeachment ceremony. That's how it's done.

 

[hortysir]

There seems to be a distinct contradiction between the Congressional Oath of office and the fact that Congress People have taken the Norquist No-Tax Pledge:

First the Constitution states:

Article VI:
3: The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Second, the congressional Oath of Office States:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) ... that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter...

Third, the Constitution States:
Article XIV:
4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.

It seems obvious that by taking the "Norquist No-Tax Pledge", these congresspeople were lying when they swore "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"

Furthermore by refusing to increase the debt ceiling they are violating Article XIV sec. 4 and therfore violating their oath of office:
"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office"

Don't believe me? (or just don't like what your reading), have a look here:


Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Does the Norquist No-Tax Pledge Violate the Congressional Oath of Office?

While the Constitution does not directly prescribe a method for removing Congress People, other than by the house itself, it does not exclude other methods either.

It would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine removal from office for these violations:

Article III:
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

Time to get this wingnuts out of office!

What constitutional duties are congress members failing to uphold?

Where is it written that it is their duty to raise the debt ceiling?
For that matter, where is it written that it's their duty to borrow money from foreign countries??

 

[whitehall]

You gotta be kidding, aincha dick?

Outside of welfare, which accounts for about 1% of the federal budget, exactly what 'entitlement' debts do you think are not earned?

What does that have to do with violating the oath of office?

 

[Meister]

The bank isn't broken until congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling.

BTW, the U.S. has been running deficits since it's inception. Sometimes massive. The Chicken little belief that suddenly our debt is at some critical breaking point is an invention of the right wing.

You have to be this dumb on purpose.

You don't have a problem with your credit limit if you control your spending...Claiming that the the federal debt can't be serviced, when they take in excess of two trillion dollars, is positively laughable.

Why is it that dumb people are always the first to call other people dumb ? Some kind of inferiority complex I guess...

Anyway, you control your debt by balancing your budget in the future. That means both cutting expenditures and increasing income. You do not control your debt by refusing to pay your current debt obligations. That tends to make things worse, much worse and rather quickly...

Could you show us exactly where this balanced budget is?....when you find it get back to me...anything less is just ledftwing bullshit, Richard. It isn't about reducing debt, it's about more spending. If they were serious they wouldn't be giving 66 million to for a train that goes in circles in Milwaukee that the bus line covers. Like I said get back to me okay?

 

[saveliberty]

This thread is a total fail on its premise. Even the tangential debt resolution solution has no basis. Note the supporter still drones on like he is making progress. lol

 

[Richard-H]

There seems to be a distinct contradiction between the Congressional Oath of office and the fact that Congress People have taken the Norquist No-Tax Pledge:

First the Constitution states:

Article VI:
3: The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Second, the congressional Oath of Office States:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) ... that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter...

Third, the Constitution States:
Article XIV:
4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.

It seems obvious that by taking the "Norquist No-Tax Pledge", these congresspeople were lying when they swore "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"

Furthermore by refusing to increase the debt ceiling they are violating Article XIV sec. 4 and therfore violating their oath of office:
"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office"

Don't believe me? (or just don't like what your reading), have a look here:


Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Does the Norquist No-Tax Pledge Violate the Congressional Oath of Office?

While the Constitution does not directly prescribe a method for removing Congress People, other than by the house itself, it does not exclude other methods either.

It would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine removal from office for these violations:

Article III:
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

Time to get this wingnuts out of office!

These people were elected by their constituents to tell the government to stop the nutcase spending spree.

Separation of powers?

Ain't gonna happen from the bench. If your local congresscritter is not pleasing to you, organize a local impeachment ceremony. That's how it's done.

Congress People have an obligation first to their oath of office, and only secondly to their constituients. That's called a Republic.

Not that I in anyway think that there's going to be a mass removal from office, I just think that here should be a mass removal from office.

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting you want the Constitution followed, yet know very little of its intent, history and meaning.

 

[Richard-H]

You have to be this dumb on purpose.

You don't have a problem with your credit limit if you control your spending...Claiming that the the federal debt can't be serviced, when they take in excess of two trillion dollars, is positively laughable.

Why is it that dumb people are always the first to call other people dumb ? Some kind of inferiority complex I guess...

Anyway, you control your debt by balancing your budget in the future. That means both cutting expenditures and increasing income. You do not control your debt by refusing to pay your current debt obligations. That tends to make things worse, much worse and rather quickly...

Could you show us exactly where this balanced budget is?....when you find it get back to me...anything less is just ledftwing bullshit, Richard. It isn't about reducing debt, it's about more spending. If they were serious they wouldn't be giving 66 million to for a train that goes in circles in Milwaukee that the bus line covers. Like I said get back to me okay?

O.K. if you think that trains that go in circles around Milwaukee are a waste of tax payers money, you repeal the law that created them and wipe out the debt that way. You don't just say to the companies that have been contracted to buid it that 'oh, by the way, now that you've ordered $10 million insupplies and hired 2000 worker...we're just not going to pay you"

I'm not against balanced budgets, I'm against defaulting on debt obligations.

 

[Richard-H]

Interesting you want the Constitution followed, yet know very little of its intent, history and meaning.

It means what it says.

Stop trying to read what you want into it and start paying attention to what is says.

 

[Richard-H]

You gotta be kidding, aincha dick?

Outside of welfare, which accounts for about 1% of the federal budget, exactly what 'entitlement' debts do you think are not earned?

What does that have to do with violating the oath of office?

Oh, I thought you were commenting on my previous post, not my original OP.

 

[Oddball]

Wait a minute....

How does it come to pass that the flakes who claim that the Constitution's provisions are "living rules" (like the liberoidal dopes at Huff-n-Puff), suddenly find any hard and fast interpretation of any of its passages?

How conveeeeeeeenient.

 

[Meister]

Why is it that dumb people are always the first to call other people dumb ? Some kind of inferiority complex I guess...

Anyway, you control your debt by balancing your budget in the future. That means both cutting expenditures and increasing income. You do not control your debt by refusing to pay your current debt obligations. That tends to make things worse, much worse and rather quickly...

Could you show us exactly where this balanced budget is?....when you find it get back to me...anything less is just ledftwing bullshit, Richard. It isn't about reducing debt, it's about more spending. If they were serious they wouldn't be giving 66 million to for a train that goes in circles in Milwaukee that the bus line covers. Like I said get back to me okay?

O.K. if you think that trains that go in circles around Milwaukee are a waste of tax payers money, you repeal the law that created them and wipe out the debt that way. You don't just say to the companies that have been contracted to buid it that 'oh, by the way, now that you've ordered $10 million insupplies and hired 2000 worker...we're just not going to pay you"

I'm not against balanced budgets, I'm against defaulting on debt obligations.

How can you have a balanced budget when politicians keep spending "OUR" money on stupid ass needless projects such as what I described????? This is the part that you refuse to understand, Richard. We will keep raising the debt with this kind of mindset, and you are worried about the bandaid and not the cause. You wingnuts just don't want to address the real problem, only the results of the real problem, sheesh.

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting you want the Constitution followed, yet know very little of its intent, history and meaning.

It means what it says.

Stop trying to read what you want into it and start paying attention to what is says.

Heal thy self physican.

 

[Richard-H]

Well, good night all!

I'm surprised that there are so many of you that apparently do not think that Congress People should live up to their oath of office nor respect the Constitution.

Just a big political game, huh?

 

[Meister]

Well, good night all!

I'm surprised that there are so many of you that apparently do not think that Congress People should live up to their oath of office nor respect the Constitution.

Just a big political game, huh?

oh brother.....