Is the debt ceiling unconstitutional?

[herbivor]

Interesting article suggesting the debt ceiling violates the 14th Amendment. It will be interesting if congress can avoid this but I feel they'll continue playing chicken until the deadline.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Amid fears the United States risks default if lawmakers don't raise the debt ceiling on time, some are suggesting President Obama could save the day by big-footing Congress.
How? By invoking the Constitution and directing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to keep borrowing even if it means going past the statutory borrowing limit.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/30/news...ution/?npt=NP1

[z31maniac]

Shall not be questioned?

Cool, we haven't already added 5 trillion in debt in two years, started more military conflicts (Libya, not drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia), let's just let them go ahead and bet the farm.

[mrsleeve]

And you agree with this action, yes?????


Umm yeah they think the new deal is constitutional as well and base its constitutionality in the 14th amendment as well, but we are stuck with that.

The executive can not "big foot" congress this is why we have equal but separate branches of govt. Remember you early middle school civics (or did they teach you the communist manifesto instead ??). This kinda shit is one of the biggest reasons out for fathers fought, bled, and died to separate them selves from a Monarchy and over bearing govt.

This is just one more case of where congress though its own actions, corruption and greed is making it self impotent. If the 0 does do something along these lines he should be impeached and removed form power, for breaking the and over reaching the chains laid out in the constitution, to keep limits on the executives power. This will not happen though as he more flagrant violations of the power of the president, that are just washed aside.

No matter what the fact that we are even in a position like this is disgusting and should never have happened. The credit card needs to be turned off and paid off/down not added to!!!!

[bmwstephen]

why bother having a ceiling if they are just going to raise it every time

[Earendil]

Shall not be questioned?

Cool, we haven't already added 5 trillion in debt in two years, started more military conflicts (Libya, not drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia), let's just let them go ahead and bet the farm.

We (The USA) didn't start Libya, and we aren't going to end Libya.
While it may not always be apparent, the United States are not the only ones in NATO. This time around the French are one of the big pushers for resolving conflict in Libya, and protecting the civilians.

Also, before this thread goes too much further I'd suggest everyone read through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_debt

And don't read through it until you find a chart that supports your world view. Try reading the entire thing ;-)

[mrsleeve]

^
Your right the frogs did start and continue to try and secure their primary source of very very light crude (they have mandated they use to make fuel) that no one else really has. But our involvement under executive order alone is limited to 60 days with out congressional approval. No I have been very very busy the last few weeks so I may have missed it, but last time I checked congress has not approved out military involvement in Libya. So ummmm yeah


and I raise you this

http://www.usdebtclock.org/sources/transparent2.gif

[joshh]

Interesting how much work they put into fighting things....when it would take half the work to do the right thing...become fiscally responsible.

I believe Republicans would be willing to lower defense spending but the real problem is Democrats are totally unwilling to lower entitlements.

Obama took the steps to start the Libyan conflict...and he's in unconstitutional territory there by his own words.

[nando]

whether you believe in debt ceilings or not, both sides have already agreed to spend the money by passing the budget. Not raising the cap is A) extremely dangerous and B) pure politics.

Basically they've alreayd spent the money. It would be like maxing out a credit card, and then deciding not to make your payments. That's not a long term solution to our fiscal issues.

[Earendil]

Interesting how much work they put into fighting things....when it would take half the work to do the right thing...become fiscally responsible.

Aye.

I believe Republicans would be willing to lower defense spending but the real problem is Democrats are totally unwilling to lower entitlements.

The real problem is that both sides want the other to comprise before they make a move. Neither side is saying "Regardless of what you do, we'll make the first step and give up X".

I see no "real" problem except both sides unwilling to approach the negotiation table without their guns.

Obama took the steps to start the Libyan conflict...and he's in unconstitutional territory there by his own words.

I don't doubt it, but I would be interested in a source for Obama starting the conflict, and Obama admitting his actions were unconstitutional. That is the first time I've heard someone state those as fact, and not conjecture.

[z31maniac]

^I find it curious that while Obama says he doesn't need Congressional approval, he asks congress to just give it to him anyway.

While we may not "have boots on the ground" if the US were to remove their logistical support, the entire operation would fail even more miserably than it already has.

[Earendil]

While we may not "have boots on the ground" if the US were to remove their logistical support, the entire operation would fail even more miserably than it already has.

No one has "boots on the ground" except for the RedCross and similar entities.

And while I do believe the US stands a good chance of taking on the entire would with our stupidly large ability to wage war, I do not doubt that NATO would have no problem executing what little we've done in Libya so far. Which has mostly been to bomb tanks and other large troops movements heading into civilian cities.

Turns out half the world uses the same jets and bombs that we do ;-)

[herbivor]

If you give $2 to someone and in return got $3 back does it make since to stop giving them $2 even if you had to borrow the $2 to get the $3?. There are alot of programs that are wasteful and need to be trimmed but there are alot that save the country money that shouldn't be trimmed. There are many research and education programs that are being cut that shouldn't be. You can't boil down the complexities of the global market, the entitlement programs and the country's debt to the example of a credit card. It's not the same.

[nando]

If you give $2 to someone and in return got $3 back does it make since to stop giving them $2 even if you had to borrow the $2 to get the $3?. There are alot of programs that are wasteful and need to be trimmed but there are alot that save the country money that shouldn't be trimmed. There are many research and education programs that are being cut that shouldn't be. You can't boil down the complexities of the global market, the entitlement programs and the country's debt to the example of a credit card. It's not the same.

I'm not sure what you mean. I think I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying they can't refuse to raise the debt ceiling (pay their credit card) when they've already spent the money (maxed it out). And we all know discretionary spending cuts aren't going to help, even if we eliminated all of them we still couldn't pay for social security and medicare without borrowing.

[joshh]

Aye.



The real problem is that both sides want the other to comprise before they make a move. Neither side is saying "Regardless of what you do, we'll make the first step and give up X".

I see no "real" problem except both sides unwilling to approach the negotiation table without their guns.



I don't doubt it, but I would be interested in a source for Obama starting the conflict, and Obama admitting his actions were unconstitutional. That is the first time I've heard someone state those as fact, and not conjecture.

I agree there. These guys are so twisted they think the first side to want to work it out is the loser. Then there's always the actions they take just to make the other side look the bad guy.


With Obama's quote about the action that Bush took....
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama

The UN has nothing to do with the Constitution. Yet he is still required to get Congress approval for Libya. Even Bush (who I very much dislike) got congress approval.
Even if you include the war powers act act...he's still not got the approval. Yet we are still involved in that war.

[M-technik-3]

Honestly, I don't like the idea of taxing business's but It really is time to cut tax breaks for OIL. Can you name a year they haven't made a profit?

I think even BP still turned a profit in 2010 even with the rig disaster. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6436070.shtml