What is a laugh is the left's devotion to executives that seize unconstitutional powers at the same time declaring that they believe in democracy and constitutional law.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
|
What is a laugh is the left's devotion to executives that seize unconstitutional powers at the same time declaring that they believe in democracy and constitutional law.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
What's a laugh is after the 2011 downgrade you wingers think it won't happen again and all those job losses and adding to the deficit this has already caused.
Who paid for Cruz's tacos when he had his secret meeting with house TParty repubs? Jim DeMint? Is this the zombie apocalypse you guys bought all those guns for, your own loony's looking for red meat?
What's a laugh is that you would blame a default on the Republicans when it's ALL in the power of the emperor to prevent it .
Typo... that should read Article 1 sec 8 clause 2Quote:
Because it would be a blatant violation of Article 1 sec 8 clause 3 which states that [The Congress shall have Power ]To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Tom does that clause say only the Congress shall have that powerQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes . The key word is the word "shall" . The founders left no ambiguity . There are those who say that sec 4 . of the 14th amendment left a loophole for the executive.. But that is only if you find a hidden meaning in the "penumbras" and "emanations" ,and the pretzel twisting of the intent of the amendment (something the left is good at ).Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
This is clearly intended to prevent the default of debt that incurred during the Civil War ,or the Federal Gvt assuming the debt incurred by the Conferderate States . There was a concern that future Congresses would rule the rebel debt null and void. If you go to article 5 of the amendment you see that no power shift was to be assumed by any of the clauses of the amendment .Quote:
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.
So if the President does a unilateral move on the raising of the debt limit then he will in effect have done a Chavez like seizure of constitutional power. I don't care that the Senate would probably not do the right thing and try and convict him... the House should immediately move on a vote of articles of impeachment .Quote:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
edit (the automatic spell check is an annoying feature .... I can have misspelled words all over a reply ;and the only thing it's concerned about is capital letters at the beginning of a sentence. ....a pretty useless addition)
Hello wrongwingers:
Seems to me, if the president was about to SAVE the country, you'd be HAPPY about it. But, since YOU'RE the ones who are DESTROYING the country, I can see WHY you're not.
Why do you hate America so much?
excon
I'm sure Chavez rationalized that he was saving the country too. I believe that Napoleon thought he was saving France . I believe that Caesar thought he was saving the Roman Republic.
I'm sure Carter thought he was saving the country.
Hello again, tom:
You don't understand default.. Nonetheless, you're advocating for it. Yes, the country NEEDS to be saved from people like you.
excon
Not at all. What I don't accept is the emperor saying that there is no acceptable option except his way. Had he truly been interested in avoiding default ,he would've become engaged in real negotiations weeks ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Instead he lives for these crisis moments because it fits in with his " transforming America" agenda.
Yes ,I believe that he would exploit his manufactured crisis to seize powers in violation of the constitution .He has already well demonstrated his disdain for the process.
Armed with the precedent of usurping the powers of Congress ,he would have carte blanche to impose the rest of his agenda during the rest of his term .
Hello again, tom:
It's true... You threatened default if the president didn't do your bidding.. He didn't, so OF COURSE it's his fault that we're going to default.Quote:
Had he truly been interested in avoiding default ,he would've become engaged in real negotiations weeks ago.
I LOVE rightwing speak.
excon
Hello again, tom:
I see that you're threatening something else if Obama SAVES the nation... What would that be?
excon
TomQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You go on about the president needing to negotiate and in the next breath you tell us that these bills originate in the house. The negotiation should take place between the representatives and the president exercise his office and sign it or not. The fact is the Tea Party has tried to seize power and decide which bills should be assented to and which will not. However you now ascribe to the president the power you say he doesn't have. No wonder you have a mess over there, everyone thinks he has the power and it is no wonder there is distain for the process. There truly is a crack in the Liberty Bell
Keep on listening to the left wing noise machine and that would be the conclusion. Spending bills have originated in the House .They have passed many such budgets and bills that either don't get debated in the Senate ;or the emperor threatens to veto.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
If the emperor wants something then yes he has to negotiate. Like it or not!
The left says he was elected . Well news to them... the House was ALSO elected ;and the majority of them ran on the position that they would repeal Obamacare . They are doing exactly what they said they'd do .
So if the emperor wants anything then he better do what every other President has been able to do... work WITH Congress.
If you mean that be saving the country that he seizes power designated in the Constitution to Congress... I've already stated what has to happen,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Should we DEFAULT, or maybe not?Quote:
So if the President does a unilateral move on the raising of the debt limit then he will in effect have done a Chavez like seizure of constitutional power. I don't care that the Senate would probably not do the right thing and try and convict him... the House should immediately move on a vote of articles of impeachment .
I think the president should sign a presidential order to increase the debt limit and call the house bluff, they won't impeach him
I just pointed out yesterday that one of his own guys, Leon Panetta, said the same thing. He needs to work with Congress, but then emperor's don't do that sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah and his compliant pretorian press will no doubt proclaim that it's Congress that caused the constitutional crisis that follows. But it doesn't surprise me that the left thinks constitutional law is subject to executive disgression .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello again, tom:I dunno. Looks to ME like you're salivating over the default like a nice juicy steak. You're going for the hat trick here, aren't you?? Sequester, shutdown, and default... It's a right wingers wet dream.Quote:
If you mean that be saving the country that he seizes power designated in the Constitution to Congress...
excon
You guys are good in the house with all these symbolic votes that can go nowhere because they are partisan and just not happening, but when it comes to doing your job, you FAILED. Even by shutting down the government, you have FAILED, because your job was to keep it functional and open. No where in the constitution that you claim to know about is there a shutdown clause.
But if congress keeps failing to do its job, there is a clause for the president to act and do his, and if it comes to it, I think he will. You guys will get mad and threaten and try the impeachment thing, but again you will FAIL! Now he has been quite clear, he will not negotiate, and YOU the congress, not just the caca sandwich group but the entire congress must do their job.
Hollering and screaming because your crap has been rejected, does not relieve you of responsibility to do your jobs and make an acceptable to all, NOT just loonyville bill to get government open and functional, and bonehead can still bring a full vote of the house on the senate bill at the last minute, and he probably will.
That would be doing HIS job. Whether the TParty likes it or NOT. Good luck if you think you can stop everybody else from doing their job.
Keep hollering and screaming FOUL, but facts are, the TParty is a minority still in government, and don't have the votes to demand a damn thing, and if Bonehead had put a boot up your butts instead of coddle you like babies, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Elections do have consequences and you don't get to ignore that fact.
Show me the clause where there is a binding duty to keep the national government open . James Madison warned about the dangers of factionalism, but he thought that the differences would be offset by the checks and balances. However ,to your point... the government was not in operation for many months in the early days of the republic. There was no need for a huge 24/7/365 operational behometh . That is the invention of the progressive era. Another thing they didn't count on was the rise of the career politician ,or the absence of a balanced budget... the out of control debt accumulation by the never satisfied trough suckers .
I already addressed the point that indeed elections have consequences. Congress was also elected ;and they all ran on the position of reigning in out of control spending and getting rid of Obamacare .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I see you got the talking points.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Okay that's cool, but the TParty doesn't have the votes despite why they came to congress. You cannot ignore the plain fact that following the TParty is following a minority, and for whatever reason repubs are following them, it leads to FAILURE, and disaster.
Only you guys believe Ted Cruz is the savior for conservatives and he has already FAILED to lead or influence the senate. I mean headlines ain't support, or votes. Maybe next election, but certainly not this one.
No Tom, your noisy minority rules isn't going to work. IT will FAIL. Nice try though.
People and the whole freakin' world has changed since the beginnings of this country and there are more things to consider than just the original intent of meeting the needs of a nation that's pheasants and farmers.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You just cannot imagine that Madison and Jefferson would be freaked out by the notions of A bombs and Wall Street, and 360 million people and a minority of them farmers. They too would be forced to dealing with the reality of the world they live in.
Deal with the changes and make adjustments, because thing have changed, and will continue to change whether you like it, or NOT. I mean the wheel was a great idea, but we replaced the horses with motors a long time ago.
Not saying nostalgia is a bad thing, but reality is a beeyatch to deal with if you don't want to. Fact is, its 2013, NOT 1776. Embrace that fact if nothing else because Madison and Jefferson, ain't here to decide what we should do that's best for the nation. We are.
You have already quoted it.Quote:
Show me the clause where there is a binding duty to keep the national government open .
I don't know how this will play out . Maybe I'm taking the long view of this . Maybe Goldwater got trounced ,and Reagan had to lose to the beltway insider Rockefeller Repubics before he took control of the party and was twice elected . Sometimes a losing battle is worth fighting .Quote:
Only you guys believe Ted Cruz is the savior for conservatives and he has already FAILED to lead or influence the senate. I mean headlines ain't support, or votes. Maybe next election, but certainly not this one.
I know what your side wants... an opposition party that isn't really an opposition party.
Oh they'd be freaked out all right... at the size of government and the scope of it's power and control over the people. Jefferson argued that there should be periodic revolution to guard against the very thing this nation has become.Quote:
You just cannot imagine that Madison and Jefferson would be freaked out by the notions of A bombs and Wall Street, and 360 million people and a minority of them farmers. They too would be forced to dealing with the reality of the world they live in.
No I haven't . The government has to pay it's debt . There is nothing that says it has to stay continuosly in operation.Quote:
Quote:
Show me the clause where there is a binding duty to keep the national government open .
You have already quoted it.
We have revolutions every two years, what kind of revolution are YOU talking about?
The people have said that's what we want, and the 17% that's shutdown has pissed the American people off. Everybody but the TParty loony's, and the 20' something percent.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not what I'm talking about... what Jefferson was talking about . But you are wrong . Elections are not revolutions .They are very much part of our system of governace .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I'll give you Jefferson's direct quote...
Quote:
God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
I ask again what kind of revolution are YOU talking about? Jefferson's opinion is irrelevant to me. And he ain't here is he?
My reply was self explanatory and in context to your remark .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Should we DEFAULT, or maybe not?
Yes! Do it!Quote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-cont...rt-popcorn.gif
Are you advocating a second amendment remedy?
I advocated nothing . You are not that slow... so you are being intentionally provocative.
If you are looking for something I advocate ;then all you have to do is read my previous comment before you dug Jefferson from his grave.
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Should we DEFAULT, or maybe not?
When Timothy McVeigh was arrested after the Oklahoma City bombing, he was wearing a shirt with the "tree of liberty" quote, so it's not a good idea to be using it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:25 AM. |