Obama's 'Going to Violate the Constitution, Unilaterally Lift the Debt Ceiling'

[Jimmy_Jam]

The debt limit has NOTHING to do with allowing more spending, and NOTHING to do with controlling government spending. Likewise, it has nothing to do with violating Article I Section 8 of the Constitution as the OP suggests. It is raised solely to fund previously enacted spending decisions by Congress. It is an "after-the-fact" action that is typically done automatically, unless somebody wants to make it a political talking point, of course.

Instead let's concentrate on the spending decisions that make raising the debt-ceiling necessary in the first place. But that won't happen, will it? Doing that would bring the actual voting and actions of our elected officials to the attention of the public and might actually result in a more informed electorate.

Can't have that. Instead, let's create a bogeyman called "the debt ceiling." It works because it's such a scary-sounding thing, like saying "9/11" over and over to justify whatever Homeland Security measures the Fed wants to dream up.

 

[Sallow]

Will the pubs get us another mark down on our credit rating?

Even though they can't lie about whose fault it is, I think they want to.

Actually, there's not much the pubs would not do to hurt the US.

Whose Presidency did that happen under? What was that? Louder! Obama's! That's correct.

Sure.

And the S&P cited the inability of congress to work together.

That..and they were about a trillion dollars off in their analysis.

This was a historical first as well. They screwed up the math..so they incorporated politics.

 

[beretta304]

Your's and Levin's premise is completely incorrect.

Obama isn't violating the Constitution.

But you seem to ignore each and every germane point made toward that fact.

It's sorta frustrating.

You missed post # 123.

This is what he does everyday... I doubt it as well but it doesn't mean that I can't post Levin's view on it. g5000 can grasp that concept.

If I had a treat, I'd reward you. And? See the part where I say that "I doubt it"? That's the only opinion I posted on the issue. All the rest is just yours and g5000's ASSumptions of what I think. You two brain surgeons walked right into this one.

 

[beretta304]

Will the pubs get us another mark down on our credit rating?

Even though they can't lie about whose fault it is, I think they want to.

Actually, there's not much the pubs would not do to hurt the US.

Whose Presidency did that happen under? What was that? Louder! Obama's! That's correct.

Sure.

And the S&P cited the inability of congress to work together.

That..and they were about a trillion dollars off in their analysis.

This was a historical first as well. They screwed up the math..so they incorporated politics.

Just like Booooooooooooosh owns everything so too does Obama, period! Spank you very much!

 

[elvis]

I notice in this long post there is not a single shred of evidence that Obama plans on raising the debt ceiling unconstitutionally. You just have some heavily biased partisan pundit saying Obama will.


So please provide that evidence.


Thanks.


.

Congress can still vote against any spending.

The debt ceiling is completely unnecessary and complete idiocy.

A claim was made. I want to see the evidence.


And yes, Congress is the body that spends all the money, which in turns requires us to borrow that money, which in turn pushes us over the debt ceiling.

So it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone in Congress to bitch and scream about the debt ceiling being raised when they are the ones who spent that money. And it is the height of hypocrisy for any partisan asshole to bitch about the debt ceiling being raised when their party was a full and willing partner in the spending of that money.


Nonetheless, a claim was made. I want to see the evidence. I am sick of this shit.

.

Which congress spent that money?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What I find amusing is that you and the rest of the mindless Obamabots decided that you would defend your little tin god for violating the constitution and demand "Nuh uh, he CAN TOO raise the debt ceiling."

Only G5000 bothered to take the approach that Obama IS restrained by Article I, and that he would follow the constitution.

Now I don't happen to agree, but at least his argument is rational - your argument that the constitution doesn't say what it says - is far from rational.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your's and Levin's premise is completely incorrect.

Obama isn't violating the Constitution.

Because Obama IS the constitution?

IF Obama violates the debt ceiling imposed by congress, he is indeed violating the constitution. Since both he and you support dictatorship, I don't know that this will mean much, but it does violate the laws that the old Republic operated under.

But you seem to ignore each and every germane point made toward that fact.

It's sorta frustrating.

It'll be so much easier when you can just have anyone not bowing to Obama shot....

 

[beretta304]

What I find amusing is that you and the rest of the mindless Obamabots decided that you would defend your little tin god for violating the constitution and demand "Nuh uh, he CAN TOO raise the debt ceiling."

Only G5000 bothered to take the approach that Obama IS restrained by Article I, and that he would follow the constitution.

Now I don't happen to agree, but at least his argument is rational - your argument that the constitution doesn't say what it says - is far from rational.

I find it even more noteworthy the degree to which they will go to defend Dear Leader.

And if he turns out to be the 1st president to do this, which I doubt, they will back him 100%. But when he's the first President to get the country downgraded, then they refuse to own that as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Will the pubs get us another mark down on our credit rating?

Oh, that happened under Bush?

Even though they can't lie about whose fault it is, I think they want to.

Actually, there's not much the pubs would not do to hurt the US.

It was the fault of George W. Bush - he was president and the responsible party, right?

 

[beretta304]

Your's and Levin's premise is completely incorrect.

Obama isn't violating the Constitution.

Because Obama IS the constitution?

IF Obama violates the debt ceiling imposed by congress, he is indeed violating the constitution. Since both he and you support dictatorship, I don't know that this will mean much, but it does violate the laws that the old Republic operated under.

But you seem to ignore each and every germane point made toward that fact.

It's sorta frustrating.

It'll be so much easier when you can just have anyone not bowing to Obama shot....

The left would have no issue with that until the right wins the WH and turns it on them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Throw in the towel, did ya?

Pwn!

So, when you huff spray paint with del and Truthmatters, do you have a particular color that you like?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That wasn't your task.

It was to find the Debt Ceiling...

You didn't.

You failed.

Fucktard, read again.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

The authority to incur debt rests SOLELY with congress, not your Glorious Ruler.

 

[beretta304]

Throw in the towel, did ya?

Pwn!

So, when you huff spray paint with del and Truthmatters, do you have a particular color that you like?

I always find it telling, as well as entertaining that they always seems to need to declare a "victory" when debating on a board.

Self validation issues I guess...

 

[beretta304]

That wasn't your task.

It was to find the Debt Ceiling...

You didn't.

You failed.

Fucktard, read again.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

The authority to incur debt rests SOLELY with congress, not your Glorious Ruler.

Sallow has been repeating it all morning. Been shot down all morning and is still trying with the same angle and will likely do so all afternoon.

A bad case of "obtuseitis".

 

[Uncensored2008]

The debt limit has NOTHING to do with allowing more spending,[

Look, you're stupid - it's why you are a leftist.

Congress alone has the authority to borrow money. That means CONGRESS SETS THE DEBT CEILING.

and NOTHING to do with controlling government spending. Likewise, it has nothing to do with violating Article I Section 8 of the Constitution as the OP suggests. It is raised solely to fund previously enacted spending decisions by Congress. It is an "after-the-fact" action that is typically done automatically, unless somebody wants to make it a political talking point, of course.

Instead let's concentrate on the spending decisions that make raising the debt-ceiling necessary in the first place. But that won't happen, will it? Doing that would bring the actual voting and actions of our elected officials to the attention of the public and might actually result in a more informed electorate.

Can't have that. Instead, let's create a bogeyman called "the debt ceiling." It works because it's such a scary-sounding thing, like saying "9/11" over and over to justify whatever Homeland Security measures the Fed wants to dream up.

If your little tin god violates the debt ceiling, he violates the U.S. Constitution. Since he does that on a regular basis, including murdering U.S. Citizens, no big deal. It's not like we are a nation of laws anyway.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure.

And the S&P cited the inability of congress to work together.

{S&P considered the government budget deficit of more than 11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and net government debt rising to about 80 percent or more of GDP by 2013, to be high relative to other "AAA" countries.[9] According to S&P, meaningful progress towards balancing the budget would be required to move the U.S. back to a "stable" outlook.[4] The S&P press release stated: "We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA' sovereigns."}

United States federal government credit-rating downgrade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you're a blatant liar, but you're a liar for your god, so it's all good.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The left would have no issue with that until the right wins the WH and turns it on them.

Yeah, doesn't really work that way. First day or absolute rule by the party and they outlaw the GOP, Libertarian, and all competing parties.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sallow has been repeating it all morning. Been shot down all morning and is still trying with the same angle and will likely do so all afternoon.

A bad case of "obtuseitis".

The mistake is thinking that Shallow, Truthmatters, Jakestarkey, RDean, et al, have the ability to reason. You can't get Shallow to acknowledge the constitution because he doesn't posses thought. Shallow is chanting a mantra to his god, not engaging in a reasoned debate.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Last night, radio host Mark Levin said that President Obama plans to unilaterally and unconstitutionally lift the debt ceiling, thereby circumventing Congress and avoiding negotiations with them. Levin also stated that President Obama plans to play the “catch me if you can, take me to the court” game by taking this unilateral action, because he will be able to get away with it by the time it reaches the Supreme Court.





“We’ve never had a president that’s spent like this ever. Ever. That’s why, in particular right now, the debt ceiling is so crucial, because there’s no other way to stop him.

“But let me be the first to tell you what he’s planning. And I was the first to tell you about this when he was planning it two summers ago and thinking about it.

“He’s going to violate the Constitution. That’s what he’s saying, right here.

“All you backbenchers out there, you can repeat this tomorrow. He’s going to violate the Constitution.

“Remember, Mr. Producer, when I discussed how they were playing with the language about whether Congress actually has the power over the debt, or whether the President can unilaterally act? Remember how I talked about that two years ago? Well that’s where he’s headed.

“He’s going to get a Justice Department – which is not a Justice Department, which is an injustice, an unjustice department – prepare a legal memorandum telling him he can violate the Constitution.

“He’s going to violate the Constitution, unilaterally lift the debt ceiling, and say ‘catch me if you can, take me to the court,’ and he figures by then maybe he’ll have another appointment or two to the Supreme Court by the time it winds its way there, or maybe John Roberts will help him out again. You never know.

“But he’s more than happy, more than happy to have 12, 18, 24 months of litigation, and by the time that’s done he will have already done what he will have already done.

“So I am telling you – it’s not a prediction. It’s reality. I’m telling you what he’s talking about right here. He’s not playing that game anymore, ladies and gentlemen, because he’s going to defy the rule of law, and on his own lift the debt ceiling.

“That’s what he’s going to do. [Senator] Schumer wants him to do it. All the Leftists want him to do it, and that’s what he’s going to do.”

Levin: Obama's 'Going to Violate the Constitution, Unilaterally Lift the Debt Ceiling' | CNS News

Its not unconstitutional. Congress has already authorized the spending of the money. In fact, when Congress passing a spending bill - its making a requirement by law that the money they say shall be spent is spent. The authority to borrow as needed to execute the spending laws Congress passes is implicit by the passage of those spending laws, and if the President authorizes borrowing to meet those spending laws, he is merely performing his duty as President of the United States which is to execute the laws passed by Congress!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hmm, our Forefathers signed a contract that established the Republic and instituted Constitutional Law.

I'm doing MY part by obeying Laws and Paying Taxes, but it seems to me those in power in Washington are not sticking to the terms of the Agreement.

When that happens, it's every mans right to demand the other party adhere to the terms of the contract. And in this case, the Gov't only exists through the good graces of The People. The People are Sovereign, NOT the Gov't.

If not, we have every right to break the contract and Secede.

Hard to argue with. The Federal Government is in breach of the social contract. But since 51% of voters put the miscreants back into power, what basis have we to enforce the contract?

I laughed at that too.

One would think that, after the last GObP debacle that got our credit rating lowered, the rw's would look up the meaning of DEBT CEILING.

One would think that but one would be wrong.

They still don't know what the Debt Ceiling is.