Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earl237

Impeachment is a laugh. It would require a two thirds majority and the Reps have 46, not even half. More importantly, impeaching the president for saving the economy from a crisis that they started would be political suicide, although their approval rating can't get much lower.

---

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

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;

---

Typo... that should read Article 1 sec 8 clause 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Typo... that should read Article 1 sec 8 clause 2

---

Tom does that clause say only the Congress shall have that power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom does that clause say only the Congress shall have that power

---

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:

---

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.

---

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 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

---

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 .
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.
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:

Quote:

---

Had he truly been interested in avoiding default ,he would've become engaged in real negotiations weeks ago.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.
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 .

---

Tom

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

I see that you're threatening something else if Obama SAVES the nation... What would that be?

excon

---

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:

---

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 .

---

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Should we DEFAULT, or maybe not?

I think the president should sign a presidential order to increase the debt limit and call the house bluff, they won't impeach him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.
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.

---

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 paraclete

I think the president should sign a presidential order to increase the debt limit and call the house bluff, they won't impeach him

---

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 .

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

If you mean that be saving the country that he seizes power designated in the Constitution to Congress...

---

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.

excon