PDA

View Full Version : Economics Clyburn to Obama on the Debit Crisis .... Invoke the 14th Amendment


Stinger
07-28-2011, 12:27 AM
Clyburn: Invoke the 14th Amendment
By: Jennifer Epstein
July 27, 2011 12:14 PM EDT

Rep. James Clyburn and a group of House Democrats are urging President Barack Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling if Congress can’t come up with a satisfactory plan before the Tuesday deadline.

Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat, said Wednesday that if the president is delivered a bill to raise the debt ceiling for only a short period of time, he should instead veto it and turn to the phrase in the Constitution that says the validity of the U.S. government’s debt “shall not be questioned.”

“If that’s what lands on his desk, a short-term lifting of the ceiling, the debt ceiling, he should put it on his desk next to an executive order,” Clyburn said at a press conference. “He should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment to this issue.” The Associated Press reported that he was applauded when he suggested the idea at a caucus meeting earlier in the day.

“I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets,” Clyburn added, noting that President Harry Truman did it once during his presidency after Congress was unable to pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling.

Obama and others in his administration have said they will not rely on the 14th Amendment. At a town hall last week, Obama said that he has “talked to my lawyers” and “they are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

At his daily briefing Wednesday afternoon, White House press secretary Jay Carney knocked down any suggestion that the president would reconsider.

“Our position hasn’t changed. There are not off-ramps, there’s no way around this, there’s no escape,” Carney said. “You know, having an esoteric constitutional argument won’t reduce the fact that the borrowing authority is due to expire on August 2nd and Congress has the legal authority and only Congress has the legal authority to extend that borrowing authority.”

“The president stood here and told you,” Carney added. “We consulted to see what this was about, but this is not an option.”

But Clyburn and several other liberal Democrats urged the president to reconsider.

“We’re getting down to decision time,” said Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Democratic caucus. “We have to have a failsafe mechanism and we believe that failsafe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States.”

Appearing on MSNBC later Wednesday morning, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) suggested that it should be the president’s last resort. “As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, I urge everybody to get their Constitution and read it. It says the debts of the United States shall not be questioned,” she said.

“If [Republicans] want to make this country a deadbeat nation, this president shouldn’t allow it, none of us should allow it. And I think he should seriously look at whatever options he has.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60038.html

Chocolate Hog
07-28-2011, 12:55 AM
Democrats to Obama: You can't lead by the rules so make some up.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 01:53 AM
I hope he tries. It would be great to see the president who has presided over a congress that hasn't passed a single budget since he took office unilaterally raise our debt limit in the face of an American public who is 2-1 in favor of a blanced budget amendment (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/27/poll-large-majority-support-balanced-budget-amendment-to-constitution/).

redsurfer11
07-28-2011, 04:18 AM
Clyburn: Invoke the 14th Amendment
By: Jennifer Epstein
July 27, 2011 12:14 PM EDT

Rep. James Clyburn and a group of House Democrats are urging President Barack Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling if Congress can’t come up with a satisfactory plan before the Tuesday deadline.

Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat, said Wednesday that if the president is delivered a bill to raise the debt ceiling for only a short period of time, he should instead veto it and turn to the phrase in the Constitution that says the validity of the U.S. government’s debt “shall not be questioned.”

“If that’s what lands on his desk, a short-term lifting of the ceiling, the debt ceiling, he should put it on his desk next to an executive order,” Clyburn said at a press conference. “He should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment to this issue.” The Associated Press reported that he was applauded when he suggested the idea at a caucus meeting earlier in the day.

“I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets,” Clyburn added, noting that President Harry Truman did it once during his presidency after Congress was unable to pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling.

Obama and others in his administration have said they will not rely on the 14th Amendment. At a town hall last week, Obama said that he has “talked to my lawyers” and “they are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

At his daily briefing Wednesday afternoon, White House press secretary Jay Carney knocked down any suggestion that the president would reconsider.

“Our position hasn’t changed. There are not off-ramps, there’s no way around this, there’s no escape,” Carney said. “You know, having an esoteric constitutional argument won’t reduce the fact that the borrowing authority is due to expire on August 2nd and Congress has the legal authority and only Congress has the legal authority to extend that borrowing authority.”

“The president stood here and told you,” Carney added. “We consulted to see what this was about, but this is not an option.”

But Clyburn and several other liberal Democrats urged the president to reconsider.

“We’re getting down to decision time,” said Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Democratic caucus. “We have to have a failsafe mechanism and we believe that failsafe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States.”

Appearing on MSNBC later Wednesday morning, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) suggested that it should be the president’s last resort. “As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, I urge everybody to get their Constitution and read it. It says the debts of the United States shall not be questioned,” she said.

“If [Republicans] want to make this country a deadbeat nation, this president shouldn’t allow it, none of us should allow it. And I think he should seriously look at whatever options he has.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60038.html



Where is Obs plan?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Dem plan???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? They don't have one. This was all done for Political gain.

InChiefsHell
07-28-2011, 05:49 AM
I hope he tries. It would be great to see the president who has presided over a congress that hasn't passed a single budget since he took office unilaterally raise our debt limit in the face of an American public who is 2-1 in favor of a blanced budget amendment (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/27/poll-large-majority-support-balanced-budget-amendment-to-constitution/).

Could it be that this is what the Republicans are actually wanting? It's a win win for them as far as I can see...

alnorth
07-28-2011, 07:59 AM
Assuming congress craps out and fails to do anything, It will be interesting to see if Obama stands by his opinion that this is unconstitutional and off the table.

Clinton already said he would have done it, and whether its constitutional or not, the president could probably get away with it. No one likely has standing to sue for arguably saving the economy, and if the courts somehow did decide someone (congress?) had standing, they would likely wash their hands of it, say "its all political, and you have a remedy available to you. If you don't like it, impeach him", and stay out. Any attempt at removing him from office would fail (and could backfire politically), and I doubt the voters would care that much.

So, violating the constitution in this manner is probably a realistic option for Obama. If he refuses to do it to prevent a disaster, I'll have a bit more respect for him.

talastan
07-28-2011, 09:57 AM
I've looked at the 14th amendment, section 4 particularly, and I still have trouble seeing how the not raising the debt ceiling would violate the 14th amendment? All that I've read and studied about it says that the US can't just legislate the debt away. What my interpretation would then be is that if the debt ceiling isn't raised we would have to engage in spending cuts to pay our debt. To default would be unconstitutional. So you have to do across the board cuts to non-debt related items and we would then make our debt payments.

One would also that have to wonder if the way the fed has been printing money to monetize (sp?) the debt and make it dissappear would be a violation of the 14th amendment? :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 10:03 AM
Default is coming eventually anyway—not matter what the political classes say.

If the govt really wants to default and openly, the 14th Amendment could be repealed too. ( not a bad idea, imo)

I still say, a president committing an act that is clearly one belonging to the Congress, violates separation of powers. You can't just take one part of this, isolate it out of context without considering the whole document—that is other parts that govern the matter. It is intellectually dishonest and another usurpation in a long line of them.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 10:08 AM
I've looked at the 14th amendment, section 4 particularly, and I still have trouble seeing how the not raising the debt ceiling would violate the 14th amendment? All that I've read and studied about it says that the US can't just legislate the debt away. What my interpretation would then be is that if the debt ceiling isn't raised we would have to engage in spending cuts to pay our debt. To default would be unconstitutional. So you have to do across the board cuts to non-debt related items and we would then make our debt payments.

One would also that have to wonder if the way the fed has been printing money to monetize (sp?) the debt and make it dissappear would be a violation of the 14th amendment? :hmmm:

My interpretation of the 14th is weaker than yours. I don't think the 14th mandates more borrowing or more cuts. The president does not have the authority to do either, both requires legislation.

All he can do is pay the bills the best he can. Decide the order of priority, and pay whoever he can.

I think the only thing the 14th arguably does is 1) the president can not arbitrarily not pay a debt just for the hell of it, and 2) congress might not be able to repudiate a legal debt that we have borrowed.

I do not think the 14th necessarily guarantees that anyone would get paid. If we are out of money and congress refuses to borrow, there's nothing the president or the treasury can do, other than just print the debt away and turn us into Zimbabwe where a $100 bill can buy a stick of gum.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 10:12 AM
One would also that have to wonder if the way the fed has been printing money to monetize (sp?) the debt and make it dissappear would be a violation of the 14th amendment? :hmmm:

This is not illegal.

First of all, we arguably have not printed money yet on a permenant basis. If the fed sells the treasuries they bought back into the open market and burns the money they get from the sale, then we did not inflate the money supply. Aside from that, if we do decide to fire up the printing presses, there's nothing in the constitution that forbids that.

China is not guaranteed to be paid back with strong dollars. If we want to kill our currency and pay them back with monopoly money where the ink is not yet dry, that may effectively be a default, but its not technically a default.

BigChiefFan
07-28-2011, 10:42 AM
This is not illegal.

First of all, we arguably have not printed money yet on a permenant basis. If the fed sells the treasuries they bought back into the open market and burns the money they get from the sale, then we did not inflate the money supply. Aside from that, if we do decide to fire up the printing presses, there's nothing in the constitution that forbids that.

China is not guaranteed to be paid back with strong dollars. If we want to kill our currency and pay them back with monopoly money where the ink is not yet dry, that may effectively be a default, but its not technically a default.There actually is something in the constitution that shows the entire system is a sham and unconstitutional. If the Constitution doesn't state the Federal government can do it, then they can't. The Constitution is what they can do, anything not spelled out is against what the document states.

Here's the information...

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 10:53 AM
I do not think the 14th necessarily guarantees that anyone would get paid. If we are out of money and congress refuses to borrow, there's nothing the president or the treasury can do, other than just print the debt away and turn us into Zimbabwe where a $100 bill can buy a stick of gum.

This is why a default is coming—no matter what. The only debate is how it is going to happen because the FACT is our govt is bankrupt.

And we are constantly printing money whether indirectly putting more money into the system via QE or direct printing of dollars—both will destroy the dollar.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 11:56 AM
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

Sounds good, but you have one problem. What you quoted does not apply to congress.

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: [The Congress shall have Power] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility

Section 8 Paragraph 5 applies to congress. Section 10 Paragraph 1 applies to the states. Any and all challenges to the concept of fiat money has been destroyed by the supreme court long ago.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 12:07 PM
Boehner doesn't have the votes...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/173745-whip-list-on-boehners-new-plan-on-debtdeficit

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60125.html


They're not going to be there. There's no way to get there without balancing the budget.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 12:10 PM
Boehner doesn't have the votes...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/173745-whip-list-on-boehners-new-plan-on-debtdeficit

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60125.html


They're not going to be there. There's no way to get there without balancing the budget.

I have no doubt it will pass. If it doesn't Boehner is toast.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 12:12 PM
I have no doubt it will pass. If it doesn't Boehner is toast.

I don't think it will pass. The Senate is saying they will immediately take it up and defeat if if it passes. No tea party member gains anything by caving on the Boehner bill and watching it fail in the senate.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 12:19 PM
I don't think it will pass. The Senate is saying they will immediately take it up and defeat if if it passes. No tea party member gains anything by caving on the Boehner bill and watching it fail in the senate.

The bill is DOA if it passes but I just can't imagine them hanging Boehner and themselves out to dry like that.

mlyonsd
07-28-2011, 12:23 PM
The bill is DOA if it passes but I just can't imagine them hanging Boehner and themselves out to dry like that.I can't imagine the dems putting the country in default since they played the OMG we're gonna die card so long.

Oh well, it's on them now.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 12:24 PM
The bill is DOA if it passes but I just can't imagine them hanging Boehner and themselves out to dry like that.

They're not hanging themselves out to dry at all. They know where their bread is buttered. If the debt ceiling can be raised without their votes, then go ahead and raise it. But if they need the tea party votes, they will have to balance the budget. If Boehner wants to capitulate on balancing the budget, the Tea Party has no use of him.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 12:34 PM
They're not hanging themselves out to dry at all. They know where their bread is buttered. If the debt ceiling can be raised without their votes, then go ahead and raise it. But if they need the tea party votes, they will have to balance the budget. If Boehner wants to capitulate on balancing the budget, the Tea Party has no use of him.

In order for the bill to pass they will need Tea Party support and some of its members have said they will vote for it.

What I am saying is if the bill fails in the House then politically Republicans\Tea Party are in a real bind. That will just reinforce all the polls that the House is unwilling to compromise.

mlyonsd
07-28-2011, 12:36 PM
In order for the bill to pass they will need Tea Party support and some of its members have said they will vote for it.

What I am saying is if the bill fails in the House then politically Republicans\Tea Party are in a real bind. That will just reinforce all the polls that the House is unwilling to compromise.That I agree with.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 12:39 PM
In order for the bill to pass they will need Tea Party support and some of its members have said they will vote for it.

What I am saying is if the bill fails in the House then politically Republicans\Tea Party are in a real bind. That will just reinforce all the polls that the House is unwilling to compromise.

I don't see the "bind" that the Tea Party is in. I see a problem for the president, but not the Tea Party.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 12:51 PM
I don't see the "bind" that the Tea Party is in. I see a problem for the president, but not the Tea Party.

Because it changes the narrative if they don't pass it instead of the narrative that it is up to the Senate now.

KC Dan
07-28-2011, 12:53 PM
Because it changes the narrative if they don't pass it instead of the narrative that it is up to the Senate now.

If they don't pass Boehner's bill I could see the scenario play out where over the weekend Reid and Obama will release a plan, it will pass the Senate and on the eve of the debt ceiling expiration it goes to the House for final passage. It doesn't get any worse than that politically for Republicans.Fortunately that will mot happen. The repubs will pass their bill today and the senate will table it just as they have done before. And, no media outlet save the righties at Fox will decry the inability for the senate to vote on or even debate the House bill. This is all a big F'N joke. The righties are not much better but at least they actually vote on a bill. It's the senate that is NOT doing their job

mlyonsd
07-28-2011, 01:00 PM
Fortunately that will mot happen. The repubs will pass their bill today and the senate will table it just as they have done before. And, no media outlet save the righties at Fox will decry the inability for the senate to vote on or even debate the House bill. This is all a big F'N joke. The righties are not much better but at least they actually vote on a bill. It's the senate that is NOT doing their job

The republicans need to sell it to the media (that will listen) that they compromised amongst themselves and increased the debt limit. And the only ones standing in the way were Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

If it were me then I'd just let it play out.

go bowe
07-28-2011, 01:02 PM
The republicans need to sell it to the media (that will listen) that they compromised amongst themselves and increased the debt limit. And the only ones standing in the way were Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

If it were me then I'd just let it play out.

war-monger...

mlyonsd
07-28-2011, 01:03 PM
war-monger...

Evidently Boehner and Cantor care more that you get your SS check than Reid/Schumer/Obama.

Sucks being you when your own team waives you.

BigChiefFan
07-28-2011, 01:05 PM
Sounds good, but you have one problem. What you quoted does not apply to congress.



Section 8 Paragraph 5 applies to congress. Section 10 Paragraph 1 applies to the states. Any and all challenges to the concept of fiat money has been destroyed by the supreme court long ago.

http://kwaves.com/fiat.htm

go bowe
07-28-2011, 01:12 PM
Evidently Boehner and Cantor care more that you get your SS check than Reid/Schumer/Obama.

Sucks being you when your own team waives you.

just because i voted for obama doesn't mean i'm on his team...

have you seen me defending the slut, er slug?

mlyonsd
07-28-2011, 01:15 PM
just because i voted for obama doesn't mean i'm on his team...

have you seen me defending the slut, er slug?

My apologies. I guess I mean it more from a social liberal viewpoint.

Boehner wants to cut and hand you a check. Reid/Schumer want you to eat dog food for a while so hopefully they can trick you into voting for them next year.

Funny, isn't it, how sometimes the line between your friends/enemies gets blurred.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 01:22 PM
Fortunately that will mot happen. The repubs will pass their bill today and the senate will table it just as they have done before. And, no media outlet save the righties at Fox will decry the inability for the senate to vote on or even debate the House bill. This is all a big F'N joke. The righties are not much better but at least they actually vote on a bill. It's the senate that is NOT doing their job

I somewhat agree. The House will pass the bill tonight. If they don't then politically they are in big trouble and I think they know that. That is why there is a slow drip of Republicans switching from no to yes.

go bowe
07-28-2011, 01:24 PM
My apologies. I guess I mean it more from a social liberal viewpoint.

Boehner wants to cut and hand you a check. Reid/Schumer want you to eat dog food for a while so hopefully they can trick you into voting for them next year.

Funny, isn't it, how sometimes the line between your friends/enemies gets blurred.

yep, but the cost of hand my check shouldn't be as high as it is under the repub plan...

tricks may work for some people, but i'm going to take a close luck at who the repubs nominate before i decide how to vote next time...

so far i don't see anyone i'd vote for...

and yes, it is funny how the line between right and left gets blurred...

i wouldn't call any politician my friend and i don't really consider them enemies either...

i just don't trust them to do the right thing, hell i don't trust them to get anything done at all...

go bowe
07-28-2011, 01:27 PM
I somewhat agree. The House will pass the bill tonight. If they don't then politically they are in big trouble and I think they know that. That is why there is a slow drip of Republicans switching from no to yes.

yeah, i think the house already passed a preliminary vote on it...

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 01:28 PM
I somewhat agree. The House will pass the bill tonight. If they don't then politically they are in big trouble and I think they know that. That is why there is a slow drip of Republicans switching from no to yes.

In "big" trouble? With who? Certainly not those who want our fiscal house in order.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 01:33 PM
yeah, i think the house already passed a preliminary vote on it...

Just announced the vote is set to take place between 5:45-6:15 pm.

Chief Faithful
07-28-2011, 01:36 PM
Because it changes the narrative if they don't pass it instead of the narrative that it is up to the Senate now.

Considereing how the Tea Party has made debt the primary national debate and will continue to keep that narrative in front of Obama through the 2012 election, it seems to me the Tea Party is accomplishing their objective.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 01:43 PM
In "big" trouble? With who? Certainly not those who want our fiscal house in order.

Everyone wants a compromise except it appears the far right and the far left.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 01:45 PM
Because it changes the narrative if they don't pass it instead of the narrative that it is up to the Senate now.

Changes the narrative how? The Senate still hasn't passed a plan. Obama still hasn't put forward a plan. The Tea Party is the only group that has had a plan pass at this point.

mlyonsd
07-28-2011, 01:50 PM
yep, but the cost of hand my check shouldn't be as high as it is under the repub plan...

tricks may work for some people, but i'm going to take a close luck at who the repubs nominate before i decide how to vote next time...

so far i don't see anyone i'd vote for...

and yes, it is funny how the line between right and left gets blurred...

i wouldn't call any politician my friend and i don't really consider them enemies either...

i just don't trust them to do the right thing, hell i don't trust them to get anything done at all...

Whoa easy Francis....it was just an observation that if that House plan passes the only people standing between old people and starving to death are dems.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 02:06 PM
Boehner doesn't have the votes yet. From what I've read, he's given up on the Tea Party and is now trying to get the votes out of Democrats.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 02:37 PM
Hot off the wire... It's looking like it's going to fail.


House GOP still short on votes
By Bob Cusack - 07/28/11 04:08 PM ET

House Republican leaders are still looking for the votes to pass Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) debt-limit bill.

Boehner and his lieutenants are publicly expressing confidence, but their actions clearly show that they are still rounding up support. Boehner on Thursday afternoon was seen lobbying members, seeking “yes” votes in what is the biggest vote of his Speakership.

There are 22 House Republicans who will vote no or are leaning no, according to The Hill’s whip count. There are more than three dozen Republicans who are publicly undecided, and 12 of them said or suggested on Thursday that they are still on the fence.

Boehner and his top lieutenants were scrambling for votes Thursday in anticipation of this evening’s vote, expected at around 6 p.m.

As the House was voting on a separate appropriations bill Thursday afternoon, Boehner shuttled a trio of undecided Republicans, Reps. Chuck Fleishmann (Tenn.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Bill Posey (Fla.), into an office off the House floor for private meetings.

None of the men would comment after the discussions, but as Posey was leaving, Boehner opened the office door and gave him an enthusiastic handshake in view of a gaggle of reporters watching.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) told reporters he was still leaning no on the bill and questioned whether it would be the GOP’s last chance to influence the debt limit debate. He speculated that the Senate could send Reid’s measure back to the House, which he said was similar to Boehner’s proposal, and then the House could attach a clean balanced budget amendment and send it back to the Senate. Such a move would put the ball back in the Senate’s court as Aug. 2 approached and pressure Democrats to accept a constitutional amendment they have supported in the past. Flake would not say whether he had met privately with Boehner.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-N.Y.), a conservative who frequently votes against the leadership, said he remains opposed to the bill but acknowledged that party leaders had discussed compromises that could potentially win him over. He would not disclose what those changes were and said he had not met personally with Boehner.

House Republican leaders can only afford 23 defections if every House Democrat rejects the bill. Democratic leaders have predicted every Democrat will vote no.

The 12 Republican members who indicated on Thursday they are undecided are:

Roscoe Bartlett (Md.)
Mo Brooks (Ala.)
Stephen Fincher (Tenn.)
Trent Franks (Ariz.)
Scott Garrett (N.J.)
Randy Hultgren (Ill.)
Timothy Johnson (Ill.)
Tom Marino (Pa.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Jean Schmidt (Ohio)
Michael Turner (Ohio)
Tim Walberg (Mich.)

Unlike the others, Johnson's office declined to comment. The rest said their bosses were still mulling how to vote.

Republican members who did not return phone calls on Thursday include Reps. Joe Barton (Texas), Dan Benishek (Mich.), Dan Burton (Ind.), John Duncan (Tenn.) and Jean Schmidt (Ohio). All of these members have bucked their leaders at times on high-profile issues, most notably during the fiscal 2011 budget debate.

The problem for Boehner is that most of the 22 no/leaning no votes on The Hill’s list can't be swayed. These include Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Ron Paul (Texas), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Louie Gohmert (Texas) and Steve King (Iowa.).

Franks played a key role in the 2003 Medicare drug vote, which was supposed to be 15 minutes. Leaders held the vote open for nearly three hours, and convinced Franks and then-Rep. Butch Otter (R-Idaho) to switch their nos to yeses. The bill was subsequently signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, who was woken up to call Franks during the House vote.

Erik Wasson and Russell Berman contributed to this report.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/174209-house-gop-still-short-on-votes

mlyonsd
07-28-2011, 02:47 PM
Hot off the wire... It's looking like it's going to fail.


House GOP still short on votes
By Bob Cusack - 07/28/11 04:08 PM ET

House Republican leaders are still looking for the votes to pass Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) debt-limit bill.

Boehner and his lieutenants are publicly expressing confidence, but their actions clearly show that they are still rounding up support. Boehner on Thursday afternoon was seen lobbying members, seeking “yes” votes in what is the biggest vote of his Speakership.

There are 22 House Republicans who will vote no or are leaning no, according to The Hill’s whip count. There are more than three dozen Republicans who are publicly undecided, and 12 of them said or suggested on Thursday that they are still on the fence.

Boehner and his top lieutenants were scrambling for votes Thursday in anticipation of this evening’s vote, expected at around 6 p.m.

As the House was voting on a separate appropriations bill Thursday afternoon, Boehner shuttled a trio of undecided Republicans, Reps. Chuck Fleishmann (Tenn.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Bill Posey (Fla.), into an office off the House floor for private meetings.

None of the men would comment after the discussions, but as Posey was leaving, Boehner opened the office door and gave him an enthusiastic handshake in view of a gaggle of reporters watching.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) told reporters he was still leaning no on the bill and questioned whether it would be the GOP’s last chance to influence the debt limit debate. He speculated that the Senate could send Reid’s measure back to the House, which he said was similar to Boehner’s proposal, and then the House could attach a clean balanced budget amendment and send it back to the Senate. Such a move would put the ball back in the Senate’s court as Aug. 2 approached and pressure Democrats to accept a constitutional amendment they have supported in the past. Flake would not say whether he had met privately with Boehner.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-N.Y.), a conservative who frequently votes against the leadership, said he remains opposed to the bill but acknowledged that party leaders had discussed compromises that could potentially win him over. He would not disclose what those changes were and said he had not met personally with Boehner.

House Republican leaders can only afford 23 defections if every House Democrat rejects the bill. Democratic leaders have predicted every Democrat will vote no.

The 12 Republican members who indicated on Thursday they are undecided are:

Roscoe Bartlett (Md.)
Mo Brooks (Ala.)
Stephen Fincher (Tenn.)
Trent Franks (Ariz.)
Scott Garrett (N.J.)
Randy Hultgren (Ill.)
Timothy Johnson (Ill.)
Tom Marino (Pa.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Jean Schmidt (Ohio)
Michael Turner (Ohio)
Tim Walberg (Mich.)

Unlike the others, Johnson's office declined to comment. The rest said their bosses were still mulling how to vote.

Republican members who did not return phone calls on Thursday include Reps. Joe Barton (Texas), Dan Benishek (Mich.), Dan Burton (Ind.), John Duncan (Tenn.) and Jean Schmidt (Ohio). All of these members have bucked their leaders at times on high-profile issues, most notably during the fiscal 2011 budget debate.

The problem for Boehner is that most of the 22 no/leaning no votes on The Hill’s list can't be swayed. These include Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Ron Paul (Texas), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Louie Gohmert (Texas) and Steve King (Iowa.).

Franks played a key role in the 2003 Medicare drug vote, which was supposed to be 15 minutes. Leaders held the vote open for nearly three hours, and convinced Franks and then-Rep. Butch Otter (R-Idaho) to switch their nos to yeses. The bill was subsequently signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, who was woken up to call Franks during the House vote.

Erik Wasson and Russell Berman contributed to this report.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/174209-house-gop-still-short-on-votesIdiots.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 03:13 PM
Idiots.

I love it! GRIDLOCK! I think it's a riot!

Don't get me wrong, I do agree that those who put into SS should get something out of it.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 03:54 PM
Boehner's bill vote is off or postponed. Could happen or not but that is not good news for him.

Despite a days-long push to force their conservative members into line, and sneak Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) debt limit bill through the House of Representatives, GOP leadership has postponed a scheduled vote on the legislation -- a sign that their efforts have thus far failed.
This evening, members were alerted that Boehner and his leadership team were delaying the vote, which had been scheduled for 6 p.m.

"Members are advised that the House GOP Leadership has postponed the votes on the motion to recommit and final passage of S. 627 - Speaker Boehner's Short Term Default Act (amending the Faster FOIA Act of 2011)," reads a notice from Minority Whip Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) office to his whip team.

The measure could still come up for a vote late Thursday, but not until the House holds a series of back to back votes on unrelated issues.
The announcement landed well after U.S. markets closed.

RNR
07-28-2011, 04:06 PM
yep, but the cost of hand my check shouldn't be as high as it is under the repub plan...

tricks may work for some people, but i'm going to take a close luck at who the repubs nominate before i decide how to vote next time...

so far i don't see anyone i'd vote for...

and yes, it is funny how the line between right and left gets blurred...

i wouldn't call any politician my friend and i don't really consider them enemies either...
i just don't trust them to do the right thing, hell i don't trust them to get anything done at all...

I do~

Taco John
07-28-2011, 04:07 PM
I don't know where Boehner goes from here. He's caught between a rock and a hard place. He should have known that he wouldn't get the support he needed without a balanced budget.

As far as I can tell, he's got two choices:

1) Stand firm on a balanced budget and gain the support of the Tea Party, and take the fight to the Senate.

2) Move more towards the Democrats and attract votes from enough of them to get a plan through.

I personally think he'll opt for #2.

Stewie
07-28-2011, 04:14 PM
Part 1:

The debt limit will be raised.

Part 2:

The credit rating of the US will drop for the first time ever.

Part 3:

We're Greece times 1000.

Calcountry
07-28-2011, 05:14 PM
Assuming congress craps out and fails to do anything, It will be interesting to see if Obama stands by his opinion that this is unconstitutional and off the table.

Clinton already said he would have done it, and whether its constitutional or not, the president could probably get away with it. No one likely has standing to sue for arguably saving the economy, and if the courts somehow did decide someone (congress?) had standing, they would likely wash their hands of it, say "its all political, and you have a remedy available to you. If you don't like it, impeach him", and stay out. Any attempt at removing him from office would fail (and could backfire politically), and I doubt the voters would care that much.

So, violating the constitution in this manner is probably a realistic option for Obama. If he refuses to do it to prevent a disaster, I'll have a bit more respect for him.Newsflash, Clinton hates Obama.

Calcountry
07-28-2011, 05:17 PM
I don't know where Boehner goes from here. He's caught between a rock and a hard place. He should have known that he wouldn't get the support he needed without a balanced budget.

As far as I can tell, he's got two choices:

1) Stand firm on a balanced budget and gain the support of the Tea Party, and take the fight to the Senate.

2) Move more towards the Democrats and attract votes from enough of them to get a plan through.

I personally think he'll opt for #2.I personally think he should pass a clean 300 billion dollar debt ceiling increase, do a media PR blitz for a month. Keep this thing going another month. Blame the spending on Obama. Bring out instance after instance of wasteful spending.

If Obama vetoes that, then he will be blamed for not trying to reach a deal and shutting the government down. If Read doesn't pass it through he gets theblame. Game over, we bite the bullet and see who blinks first.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 05:23 PM
I don't know where Boehner goes from here. He's caught between a rock and a hard place. He should have known that he wouldn't get the support he needed without a balanced budget.

As far as I can tell, he's got two choices:

1) Stand firm on a balanced budget and gain the support of the Tea Party, and take the fight to the Senate.

2) Move more towards the Democrats and attract votes from enough of them to get a plan through.

I personally think he'll opt for #2.

IMVHO it is stupid to demand a balance budget amendment because it has no chance to pass. Even McCain admits this because it would require 67 senators to pass it.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 05:34 PM
IMVHO it is stupid to demand a balance budget amendment because it has no chance to pass. Even McCain admits this because it would require 67 senators to pass it.

Well then they can come up with a bipartisan plan that bypasses the Tea Party.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 05:34 PM
IMVHO it is stupid to demand a balance budget amendment because it has no chance to pass. Even McCain admits this because it would require 67 senators to pass it.

Aside from being impossible to pass, probably forever and ever for as long as any of us live, a balanced budget amendment is also idiotic, unless it is heavily loaded with exceptions and contingencies to account for emergencies and exceptional temporary few-year needs.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 05:36 PM
Well then they can come up with a bipartisan plan that bypasses the Tea Party.

A balanced budget amendment wont happen. Period. So you are talking long-term non-stop default through 2013.

The endgame of the path you want to travel is the markets collapse, checks begin to be delayed, the people wake up to realize this is a big deal, they revolt with a ferocity never seen in a generation, the republican poll numbers all collapse, many tea partiers lose in 2012, and the Republican party is wandering the political wilderness for over a decade or more.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 05:39 PM
Well then they can come up with a bipartisan plan that bypasses the Tea Party.

That is probably what is going to happen and it looks like it might combine the McConnell bill, Boehner and Reid bill.

Under the possible compromise, Congress could still get a second crack at voting on the debt limit within months. But rather than linking the vote to Congress approving the recommendations of a new 12-member committee — as it would be in Boehner’s bill — Democrats prefer McConnell’s proposal that allows President Barack Obama to lift the debt ceiling unless two-thirds of both chambers override his veto of a disapproval resolution, the officials said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60177.html#ixzz1TRjYWtnK

alnorth
07-28-2011, 06:00 PM
In other news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-28/u-s-contingency-plan-gives-bondholders-priority.html

To the surprise of probably no one, if there's no deal then interest payments to holders of government bonds will be the #1 priority. No clue who gets paid after that.

Taco John
07-28-2011, 06:05 PM
A balanced budget amendment wont happen. Period. So you are talking long-term non-stop default through 2013.

The endgame of the path you want to travel is the markets collapse, checks begin to be delayed, the people wake up to realize this is a big deal, they revolt with a ferocity never seen in a generation, the republican poll numbers all collapse, many tea partiers lose in 2012, and the Republican party is wandering the political wilderness for over a decade or more.


Nah. I don't buy all of that fear mongering. Nor am I too worried about tea partiers losing seats. Polls show that the tea party is picking up momentum, and that the American public supports a balanced budget amendment 2-1.

The debt limit is going to be increased. They will find a way to bypass the tea party and get the votes they need to increase the debt limit without any meaningful reforms. It will be the Republicans and Democrats vs. the Tea Party, and politically, that's exactly where I want to be for 2012 - with everyone on record with this vote, who held the line, and who didn't. As far as the debt issue goes, I'm more worried about the default that is coming by way of inflation than I am about a default by not increasing the debt limit.

The Republican party has the tea party to thank for not having to wander in the wilderness right now. We're going to watch them repay the Tea Party by compromising with the democrats on a deal that asks for virtually nothing by way of reform. We're going to challenge the lot of them with tea party challengers in 2012, and run commercials about how they stood with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi when it came time to stand firm against business as usual in Washington. Let the fists fly.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 08:28 PM
NO VOTE..

What an embarrassment for the right

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 08:36 PM
Interested to see how they spin this. Does the tea party literally just want to destroy our economy so they can rise up from the ashes? I really can't understand what their motivation is.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 08:37 PM
NO VOTE..

What an embarrassment for the right

What has the Dem Senate done? Oh yea, nothing. Reid's plan won't pass his own senate. What an embarrasment for the Left.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 08:38 PM
Interested to see how they spin this. Does the tea party literally just want to destroy our economy so they can rise up from the ashes? I really can't understand what their motivation is.

End the status quo that got us in this position in the first place???

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 08:38 PM
Nah. I don't buy all of that fear mongering. Nor am I too worried about tea partiers losing seats. Polls show that the tea party is picking up momentum, and that the American public supports a balanced budget amendment 2-1.

The debt limit is going to be increased. They will find a way to bypass the tea party and get the votes they need to increase the debt limit without any meaningful reforms. It will be the Republicans and Democrats vs. the Tea Party, and politically, that's exactly where I want to be for 2012 - with everyone on record with this vote, who held the line, and who didn't. As far as the debt issue goes, I'm more worried about the default that is coming by way of inflation than I am about a default by not increasing the debt limit.

The Republican party has the tea party to thank for not having to wander in the wilderness right now. We're going to watch them repay the Tea Party by compromising with the democrats on a deal that asks for virtually nothing by way of reform. We're going to challenge the lot of them with tea party challengers in 2012, and run commercials about how they stood with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi when it came time to stand firm against business as usual in Washington. Let the fists fly.

Lol the tea party is going down in flames. Check Rick Scott's approval ratings lately? People are getting a big heap of buyer's remorse and their "tea party hangover" all over the country. This latest congressional gridlock is just another nail in the coffin. What kind of way to lead the country is this?

petegz28
07-28-2011, 08:40 PM
Lol the tea party is going down in flames. Check Rick Scott's approval ratings lately? People are getting a big heap of buyer's remorse and their "tea party hangover" all over the country. This latest congressional gridlock is just another nail in the coffin. What kind of way to lead the country is this?

Apparently no bette than the Dems way ...you know, go 2 years without passing a budget???

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 08:40 PM
End the status quo that got us in this position in the first place???

By putting us into default and driving the interest on our debt up so high we actually end up paying more?

How much sense does that make? Oh we care about debt so much, we're willing to put the country into more of it just to prove a point about how much we hate it. Kafkaesque tea party logic as usual.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 08:41 PM
By putting us into default and driving the interest on our debt up so high we actually end up paying more?

How much sense does that make? Oh we care about debt so much, we're willing to put the country into more of it just to prove a point about how much we hate it. Kafkaesque tea party logic as usual.

A, default is a myth you and several others are buying into.

B, do you really think we can borrow all this money and not have to swallow a huge pill at some point?

C, interest rates are not going to stay low forever. In fact they are so low and have been for so long they are destroying the $.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 08:52 PM
What has the Dem Senate done? Oh yea, nothing. Reid's plan won't pass his own senate. What an embarrasment for the Left.

Well first the Senate has different rules than the House. They need 60 votes and they don't have that many Dems to pass it but make no mistake all the Dems would vote yes for it unlike the far right who just screwed their speaker.

BTW I am thinking they will pass a bill now and leave it up to the House on the eve of default to pass it.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 08:57 PM
Well first the Senate has different rules than the House. They need 60 votes and they don't have that many Dems to pass it but make no mistake all the Dems would vote yes for it unlike the far right who just screwed their speaker.

BTW I am thinking they will pass a bill now and leave it up to the House on the eve of default to pass it.

Perhaps if they would have passed a budget this would be a non-issue? You want to talk about embarrasments? Let's talk about 4 years of a Dem congress where 2 of the 4 never passed a budget but yet rammed down a money sinker like Obamacare.

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 08:58 PM
A, default is a myth you and several others are buying into.

It's looking a lot closer to reality now.

B, do you really think we can borrow all this money and not have to swallow a huge pill at some point?

Right, so let's just take a cyanide pill now to stave off the inevitable.

C, interest rates are not going to stay low forever. In fact they are so low and have been for so long they are destroying the $.

So you're (semi) advocating default to bring interest rates up to a more correct level. Have you consulted with any economists on this stance?

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 08:59 PM
FWIW - I think the stock market is going to plummet tomorrow and that will spur some action. Just like with the bailout.

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 09:00 PM
Part 1:

The debt limit will be raised.

Part 2:

The credit rating of the US will drop for the first time ever.

Part 3:

We're Greece times 1000.

Greece can't afford to pay their debts now. We can. It's the mandatory entitlement spending that is strangling America and until you address that (and baseline budgeting) we will continue on the pathway towards becoming Greece sometime in the 20-25 years or so.

But considering that the biggest and most reliable voting bloc (seniors) will be the ones most interested in keeping the goodies coming, you can expect a few more years of smoke and mirror budgets before it becomes clear that giving away other people's money in the name of "fairness" isn't a workable economic policy.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 09:01 PM
It's looking a lot closer to reality now.



Right, so let's just take a cyanide pill now to stave off the inevitable.



So you're (semi) advocating default to bring interest rates up to a more correct level. Have you consulted with any economists on this stance?

Many economists, including member of the Fed Reserver have felt interest rates were too low for long.

The bottom line is nothing is going to be easy. We didn't want to rip the band-aid off when we should have, we wanted to peel it away slowley. Well, you know how that goes.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 09:02 PM
FWIW - I think the stock market is going to plummet tomorrow and that will spur some action. Just like with the bailout.

It probably will but that's also knee-jerk reaction as well. The bigger cloud hanging over stocks is a strengthening $ which could put a damper on 2nd half earnings.

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 09:03 PM
The difference between us and Greece is that we still have people dying to lend us money. It's kind of an important distinction.

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 09:07 PM
Perhaps if they would have passed a budget this would be a non-issue? You want to talk about embarrasments? Let's talk about 4 years of a Dem congress where 2 of the 4 never passed a budget but yet rammed down a money sinker like Obamacare.

That doesn't make sense because they raised the debt ceiling every year under Bush and they had a budget

petegz28
07-28-2011, 09:07 PM
That doesn't make sense because they raised the debt ceiling every year under Bush and they had a budget

The irony of all that is the Dems never wanted to raise the ceiling under Bush and now the Repubs don't want to raise it under Obama. Getting the picture yet?

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 09:09 PM
Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat, said Wednesday that if the president is delivered a bill to raise the debt ceiling for only a short period of time, he should instead veto it and turn to the phrase in the Constitution that says the validity of the U.S. government’s debt “shall not be questioned.”

This is 100%, without question, totally unconstitutional.

All the people who are advocating are leaving out some important words...

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.

Absolutely no reading of this allows the President to incur more debt, or service a debt that hasn't been authorized by the only body capable of producing laws -- Congress. As of now, we have more than enough money to service the public debt (and pay all of the discretionary spending, with enough left over to cover about 20% of the mandatory entitlements -- but that's something the President will have to prioritize).

The reason this Section exists is largely because after the North and South reunified after the Civil War the South was alarmed to discover that Lincoln had incurred a substantial debt (that the South would now be responsible for taking ownership in) to fund the war and the newly reunified union didn't want the former southern states to back out of or attempt to take retribution against their former enemy or, conversely, expect the North to take ownership in the South's debts (hence the rest of the language in the Section).

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 09:10 PM
Lol the tea party is going down in flames. Check Rick Scott's approval ratings lately? People are getting a big heap of buyer's remorse and their "tea party hangover" all over the country. This latest congressional gridlock is just another nail in the coffin. What kind of way to lead the country is this?

Rick Scott is a Tea Partier—I think not. Even I voted for him.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 09:13 PM
NO VOTE..

What an embarrassment for the right

I think it's great and I am NOT embarrassed either. o:-)

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 09:14 PM
Rick Scott is a Tea Partier—I think not. Even I voted for him.

Don't you know that anyone who would dare suggest we curtail the goodies to keep America solvent is a nutty, out-of-control Tea Partier...

In a lot of ways this whole thing is exposing people for what they really are -- all the way around...

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 09:14 PM
The irony of all that is the Dems never wanted to raise the ceiling under Bush and now the Repubs don't want to raise it under Obama. Getting the picture yet?

That is factually not true. The last 3 debt ceiling votes under Bush the Dems split the vote with Republicans.

<table border="1"><tbody><tr><th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">Bill Containing Debt Ceiling Increase</th> <th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">New Debt Ceiling Level Enacted</th> <th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">Number of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”</th> </tr><tr> <td>111-H.J.Res.45 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj45/show) – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)</td> <td>$14,294,000,000,000 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111samdt3299)</td> <td>0 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00014#position)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>111-H.R.4314 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4314/show) – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)</td> <td>$12,394,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4314/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:17)</td> <td>1 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2009/s/397)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>111-H.R.1 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/show) – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)</td> <td>$12,104,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:3689)</td> <td>2 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2009/s/61)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.R.1424 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1424/show) – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)</td> <td>$11,315,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1424/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:434)</td> <td>33 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2008/s/213)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.R.3221 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3221/show) – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)</td> <td>$10,615,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3221/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:4476)</td> <td>34 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2008/s/96)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.J.Res.43 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hj43/show) – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)</td> <td>$9,815,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hj43/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:9)</td> <td>26 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2007/s/354)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>109-H.J.Res.47 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-47) – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)</td> <td>$8,965,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj109-47&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A14)</td> <td>51 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-54)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>108-S.2986 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2986) – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)</td> <td>$8,184,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s108-2986&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A16)</td> <td>50 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2004-213)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>108-H.J.Res.51 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj108-51) – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)</td> <td>$7,384,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj108-51&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A14)</td> <td>50 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2003-202)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>107-S.2578 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s107-2578) – Debt limit bill (2002)</td> <td>$6,400,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-2578&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A12)</td> <td>31 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2002-148)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>105-H.R.2015 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.105hr2015) – Balanced Budget Act of 1997</td> <td>$5,950,000,000,000 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:h2015.enr:)</td> <td>Passed by unanimous consent; 55 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.105hr2015) Republicans vote in favor</td></tr></tbody></table>

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 09:15 PM
Don't you know that anyone who would dare suggest we curtail the goodies to keep America solvent is a nutty, out-of-control Tea Partier...

In a lot of ways this whole thing is exposing people for what they really are -- all the way around...

It sure is! :thumb:

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 09:16 PM
I think it's great and I am NOT embarrassed either. o:-)

Well, it already killed a project I was working on so the uncertainty is starting to impact banks -- but did anyone really think that this would be resolved? The House can't pass a "watered down" bill that the Senate won't support. The Senate can't pass a bill that the House wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. And the White House is out there cribbing Bill Clinton's handbook by scaring people about how there won't be Christmas this year...

It's almost comical...

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 09:18 PM
Well, it already killed a project I was working on so the uncertainty is starting to impact banks -- but did anyone really think that this would be resolved? The House can't pass a "watered down" bill that the Senate won't support. The Senate can't pass a bill that the House wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. And the White House is out there cribbing Bill Clinton's handbook by scaring people about how there won't be Christmas this year...

It's almost comical...

Oh my, you're a banker 'ey?

dirk digler
07-28-2011, 09:19 PM
In a lot of ways this whole thing is exposing people for what they really are -- all the way around...

which is?

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 09:20 PM
which is?

The big govt spenders and those who think an economy runs on govt debt. That's just one category.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 09:21 PM
That is factually not true. The last 3 debt ceiling votes under Bush the Dems split the vote with Republicans.

<table border="1"><tbody><tr><th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">Bill Containing Debt Ceiling Increase</th> <th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">New Debt Ceiling Level Enacted</th> <th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">Number of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”</th> </tr><tr> <td>111-H.J.Res.45 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj45/show) – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)</td> <td>$14,294,000,000,000 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111samdt3299)</td> <td>0 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00014#position)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>111-H.R.4314 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4314/show) – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)</td> <td>$12,394,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4314/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:17)</td> <td>1 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2009/s/397)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>111-H.R.1 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/show) – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)</td> <td>$12,104,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:3689)</td> <td>2 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2009/s/61)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.R.1424 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1424/show) – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)</td> <td>$11,315,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1424/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:434)</td> <td>33 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2008/s/213)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.R.3221 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3221/show) – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)</td> <td>$10,615,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3221/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:4476)</td> <td>34 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2008/s/96)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.J.Res.43 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hj43/show) – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)</td> <td>$9,815,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hj43/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:9)</td> <td>26 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2007/s/354)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>109-H.J.Res.47 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-47) – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)</td> <td>$8,965,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj109-47&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A14)</td> <td>51 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-54)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>108-S.2986 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2986) – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)</td> <td>$8,184,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s108-2986&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A16)</td> <td>50 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2004-213)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>108-H.J.Res.51 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj108-51) – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)</td> <td>$7,384,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj108-51&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A14)</td> <td>50 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2003-202)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>107-S.2578 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s107-2578) – Debt limit bill (2002)</td> <td>$6,400,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-2578&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A12)</td> <td>31 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2002-148)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>105-H.R.2015 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.105hr2015) – Balanced Budget Act of 1997</td> <td>$5,950,000,000,000 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:h2015.enr:)</td> <td>Passed by unanimous consent; 55 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.105hr2015) Republicans vote in favor</td></tr></tbody></table>

K, I should have said Obama and some others who are now were fer it, were gin it.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 09:22 PM
Absolutely no reading of this allows the President to incur more debt, or service a debt that hasn't been authorized by the only body capable of producing laws -- Congress.

The reason this Section exists is largely because after the North and South reunified after the Civil War the South was alarmed to discover that Lincoln had incurred a substantial debt (that the South would now be responsible for taking ownership in) to fund the war and the newly reunified union didn't want the former southern states to back out of or attempt to take retribution against their former enemy or, conversely, expect the North to take ownership in the South's debts (hence the rest of the language in the Section).

Well, to be clear, this amendment is real and A Thing. It is not some useless vestigial mass like an appendix. The supreme court used it, years and years after the civil war, to force congress to repay bonds where they had passed a law that attempted to repudiate the bond.

I do not think it gives the president the authority to ignore section 1 (which gives to congress, and only to congress, the authority to borrow money) but there is a decent argument to be made. So, playing devil's advocate:

Congress was given the ability to borrow money. They delegated that authority to the treasury. In addition to that, they also imposed a debt limit. Their authority to borrow money (delegated) is protected by article 1, but the debt limit is arguably just a mere law. (note: I don't agree with that, just making the other side's argument)

So, we have the president facing two diametrically opposed laws. Congress demands he spend money on X, but also demands he not borrow more than Y. He cannot do both. When faced with an impossible situation where laws are opposed to one another, one law or the other must be violated. In general, the most recent law (or constitutional amendment) has precedence. The law mandating Obama spend money on X was passed after the law saying he cant borrow more than Y. If they conflict, the payment law should be stronger. Similarly, the 14th amendment was ratified after article 1. If they ever conflict, then amendment 14 should control (note: I don't think they necessarily conflict, and since they don't conflict, then section 1 should support the limit and defeat the requirement to spend money). So, since the 14th is superior to section 1 (where necessary) and since the budget is superior to the debt limit (where necessary), Obama is free to disregard the debt limit.

If he's really feeling ballsy he can disregard the question of budget vs debt limit and just resolve 14th vs section 1 by saying that the 14th amendment struck down, forever, the concept of a debt ceiling. If congress doesn't like it, they can either rescind the authority to borrow from the treasury and just issue bonds themselves, or they can pass nothing but balanced budgets forever.

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 09:25 PM
That is factually not true. The last 3 debt ceiling votes under Bush the Dems split the vote with Republicans.

What is factually accurate is that programs that the left now claim added the most to the deficit (the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, and Medicare Part D) couldn't have passed without Democratic support...

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 09:31 PM
Well, to be clear, this amendment is real and A Thing. It is not some useless vestigial mass like an appendix. The supreme court used it, years and years after the civil war, to force congress to repay bonds that promised gold, in gold.

I do not think it gives the president the authority to ignore section 1 (which gives to congress, and only to congress, the authority to borrow money) but there is a decent argument to be made. So, playing devil's advocate:

Congress was given the ability to borrow money. They delegated that authority to the treasury. In addition to that, they also imposed a debt limit. Their authority to borrow money (delegated) is protected by article 1, but the debt limit is arguably just a mere law. (note: I don't agree with that, just making the other side's argument)

So, we have the president facing two diametrically opposed laws. Congress demands he spend money on X, but also demands he not borrow more than Y. He cannot do both. When faced with an impossible situation where laws are opposed to one another, one law or the other must be violated. In general, the most recent law (or constitutional amendment) has precedence. The law mandating Obama spend money on X was passed after the law saying he cant borrow more than Y. If they conflict, the payment law should be stronger. Similarly, the 14th amendment was ratified after article 1. If they ever conflict, then amendment 14 should control (note: I don't think they necessarily conflict, and since they don't conflict, then section 1 should support the limit and defeat the requirement to spend money). So, since the 14th is superior to section 1 (where necessary) and since the budget is superior to the debt limit (where necessary), Obama is free to disregard the debt limit.

If he's really feeling ballsy he can disregard the question of budget vs debt limit and just resolve 14th vs section 1 by saying that the 14th amendment struck down, forever, the concept of a debt ceiling. If congress doesn't like it, they can either rescind the authori8ty to borrow from the treasury and just issue bonds themselves, or they can pass nothing but balanced budgets forever.

I really appreciate your enthusiasm for this, but again you're omitting the operative language (which isn't in Section 1). The only debt that can't be called into question is that debt that is approved by law. Discretionary spending isn't a debt as defined in the Constitution. Neither are entitlements.

There is no law to spend above the currently permitted levels authorized by Congress. This Amendment certainly can be interpretted to require the President (who is the only one with the authority to prioritize the funds that ARE coming in via the Treasury Department) to pay the debts that we will incur next month (which constitutes less than 10% of the entire revenue inflow).

Bottom-line is there is no way we'll default on anything. Doesn't make the actions of the parties any less irresponsible.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 09:40 PM
The only debt that can't be called into question is that debt that is approved by law. Discretionary spending isn't a debt as defined in the Constitution. Neither are entitlements.

This is another point I was thinking about bringing up to refute my "devil's advocate" argument (the 14th doesn't apply to anything but wages and treasuries, because appropriations are not debts) but a whole lot of people more knowledgeable on the law than I on other boards have told me I'm wrong, so I'm just assuming everything in the budget is a debt.

Obviously, if all the appropriations are not debts according to the 14th, then this 14th amendment argument is completely dead in the water.

But, thats only legally speaking. As I mentioned before, Obama could probably assert the 14th amendment solution and get away with it regardless of constitutionality if he wanted to because either no one would have standing to sue, or the supreme court would refuse to hear the case, and Obama would not be impeached.

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 10:01 PM
This is another point I was thinking about bringing up to refute my "devil's advocate" argument (the 14th doesn't apply to anything but wages and treasuries, because appropriations are not debts) but a whole lot of people more knowledgeable on the law than I on other boards have told me I'm wrong, so I'm just assuming everything in the budget is a debt.

Obviously, if all the appropriations are not debts according to the 14th, then this 14th amendment argument is completely dead in the water.

But, thats only legally speaking. As I mentioned before, Obama could probably assert the 14th amendment solution and get away with it regardless of constitutionality if he wanted to because either no one would have standing to sue, or the supreme court would refuse to hear the case, and Obama would not be impeached.

Well, to join your game -- from a legal perspective there are established rules of interpretation and, when you come to certain constitutional issues, if the ability to extend to the president the powers that you (and others) are attempting to find in the 14th Amendment (or even Article II) COULD have been extended, but were not. That's a huge problem if you're trying to interpret a power that actually runs counter to other parts of the Constitution (the power to incur the public debt in the first place residing with Congress) that ARE mentioned.

But, I think you might be able to contort yourself and at least make an argument that Social Security and Medicare payments are a public debt (since the government has been the recipient of funds with the implied understanding -- in the law -- that those receiving the benefits are entitled to receive them). That could set up a situation where the real public debt ($250-$300 billion a year) and mandatory entitlement spending ($2.1 trillion) which would use up just about all the revenues that come into the US Treasury.

Still, even if you think yourself through to such a doomsday scenario, you still have a President that may WANT to do more but the Constitution doesn't actually empower the President to ACTUALLY do more. No matter how much you want to characterize this as a disaster that puts the Republic at risk, he just doesn't have the authority to do it and any attempt to circumvent Congress would be unconstitutional and would yield a strong rebuke from the Supremes almost instantly.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 10:04 PM
This is another point I was thinking about bringing up to refute my "devil's advocate" argument (the 14th doesn't apply to anything but wages and treasuries, because appropriations are not debts) but a whole lot of people more knowledgeable on the law than I on other boards have told me I'm wrong, so I'm just assuming everything in the budget is a debt.

Obviously, if all the appropriations are not debts according to the 14th, then this 14th amendment argument is completely dead in the water.

But, thats only legally speaking. As I mentioned before, Obama could probably assert the 14th amendment solution and get away with it regardless of constitutionality if he wanted to because either no one would have standing to sue, or the supreme court would refuse to hear the case, and Obama would not be impeached.

This no-one-having-standing point you made, wouldn't the taxpayer have standing? Couldn't there be a class action suit against Obama by taxpayers if he makes a move that bypasses Congress?

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 10:14 PM
Well, to be clear, this amendment is real and A Thing. It is not some useless vestigial mass like an appendix. The supreme court used it, years and years after the civil war, to force congress to repay bonds where they had passed a law that attempted to repudiate the bond.

I looked into this. Actually, the ruling of the Supremes in this case (back in 1935) would seem to cut against your theory, since they again reiterate that only Congress can incur new debt. Their ruling includes the following:

"We regard [Section 4] as confirmatory of a fundamental principle, which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression “the validity of the public debt” as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

Congress was given the ability to borrow money. They delegated that authority to the treasury.

I don't know what this means. Congress can't delegate their authority to another branch of government. They also aren't REQUIRED to incur new debt, even if the engine of government needs to be fed. The Constitution leaves that to the Congress to determine and, for better or worse, we're seeing the wisdom of the forefathers and the benefits of split government playing itself out.

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 10:18 PM
This no-one-having-standing point you made, wouldn't the taxpayer have standing? Couldn't there be a class action suit against Obama by taxpayers if he makes a move that bypasses Congress?

As long as he acts in his capacity as president and within the rules of the constitution he has immunity. This, of course, would be an unconstitutional act that would likely open him up to impeachment, not a lawsuit.

It's a simple scenario -- Congress alone has the right to incur a debt, there is no requirement that they issue more debt, and there is nothing in the constitution that empowers Obama (or any other president) to circumvent the authority to write laws or issue more debt. None. Period. End of story. It's a fantasy to think he could ever do it.

Again, this is the wonderful ugliness of our system at work.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 10:40 PM
I looked into this. Actually, the ruling of the Supremes in this case (back in 1935) would seem to cut against your theory, since they again reiterate that only Congress can incur new debt.

I was talking about Perry v. United States. (but, I think that case cuts against my devil's advocate argument in a different way)

In that case, Perry had a signed contract that promised repayment of his bond in gold. Then, before maturity while congress starting passing all those gold confiscation laws back in the day, they passed a law saying all contracts which promised gold were invalid. Obviously, Perry sued.

The supremes ruled that congress was allowed to forbid private ownership of, and repayment of debts in, gold. However, citing the 14th they also said congress had no right to repudiate the bond. So, congress was forced to repay the bond, not in gold like Perry wanted, but in fiat currency.

This arguably could cut against me because this is a bond, and entitlements are arguably different (though some E-lawyers on the internet disagree). You didn't sign an agreement with the government for social security like you do for interest on treasuries.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 10:45 PM
I don't know what this means. Congress can't delegate their authority to another branch of government.

Well, whether they can or can't is not relevant anymore, because they did for almost 100 years. In the early days of the country, the congress apparently issued bonds to meet debts in a haphazard fashion. Sometimes they had extra money, and sometimes they didn't have enough and something had to shut down or not get paid. To make their lives easier, they basically passed laws that told the executive (via the treasury) "here, you do it", but they also imposed a debt limit.

If Obama uses the 14th amendment solution, congress may be able to respond by rescinding the authority of the treasury to borrow money, or the congress could just start passing only balanced budgets.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 10:50 PM
This no-one-having-standing point you made, wouldn't the taxpayer have standing? Couldn't there be a class action suit against Obama by taxpayers if he makes a move that bypasses Congress?

I don't understand it completely, but the internet lawyer nerds are apparently pretty well united in the belief, backed up by a whole lot of history, that a group of congressmen are almost never given standing to sue the president.

In this case, some treasury bond-holders might be able to cobble together a case arguing that their value in the secondary market is being harmed, but the government could probably kill standing by arguing economic Armageddon had they not acted.

Aside from all that, the courts have been reluctant to get involved in executive/legislative disputes, unless the constitution is clearly and blatantly violated (e.g. the president insanely enforcing a law that was not passed), because the legislature always has the impeachment remedy.

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 11:05 PM
Rick Scott is a Tea Partier—I think not. Even I voted for him.

Close enough.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:53 AM
Oh my, you're a banker 'ey?

A film project. I'm an ugly producer (among other things)...

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:54 AM
which is?

Opportunists at best, idiots at worst...

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:56 AM
I was talking about Perry v. United States. (but, I think that case cuts against my devil's advocate argument in a different way)

In that case, Perry had a signed contract that promised repayment of his bond in gold. Then, before maturity while congress starting passing all those gold confiscation laws back in the day, they passed a law saying all contracts which promised gold were invalid. Obviously, Perry sued.

The supremes ruled that congress was allowed to forbid private ownership of, and repayment of debts in, gold. However, citing the 14th they also said congress had no right to repudiate the bond. So, congress was forced to repay the bond, not in gold like Perry wanted, but in fiat currency.

This arguably could cut against me because this is a bond, and entitlements are arguably different (though some E-lawyers on the internet disagree). You didn't sign an agreement with the government for social security like you do for interest on treasuries.

Yep, that's the case - the Supremes affirmed that It was the actions of Congress (not the executive branch) covered by the promise contained in the 14th Amemdment.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:59 AM
I don't understand it completely, but the internet lawyer nerds are apparently pretty well united in the belief, backed up by a whole lot of history, that a group of congressmen are almost never given standing to sue the president.

In this case, some treasury bond-holders might be able to cobble together a case arguing that their value in the secondary market is being harmed, but the government could probably kill standing by arguing economic Armageddon had they not acted.

Aside from all that, the courts have been reluctant to get involved in executive/legislative disputes, unless the constitution is clearly and blatantly violated (e.g. the president insanely enforcing a law that was not passed), because the legislature always has the impeachment remedy.

Regardless of what e-lawyers believe, this will never happen and, if Obama was foolish enough to entertain the scenario, he'd be impeached (and rightfully so). It is also such a clear violation of so many parts of the Constitution that the Supremes would stop it before it got started. But nice wishful thinking on the left's part. Rather than trying to find clauses that can be contorted to get them out of this jam, maybe they could instead actually publish a plan, budget, app, or something that shows how they'd fix the problem?

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 07:34 AM
Close enough.

Uhmmmm....no!

Garcia Bronco
07-29-2011, 07:41 AM
This just in...executive orders are not laws.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 08:07 AM
As long as he acts in his capacity as president and within the rules of the constitution he has immunity. This, of course, would be an unconstitutional act that would likely open him up to impeachment, not a lawsuit.

It's a simple scenario -- Congress alone has the right to incur a debt, there is no requirement that they issue more debt, and there is nothing in the constitution that empowers Obama (or any other president) to circumvent the authority to write laws or issue more debt. None. Period. End of story. It's a fantasy to think he could ever do it.

Again, this is the wonderful ugliness of our system at work.

This has been pretty much my position since this 14th Amendment angle has been mentioned. You can always find lawyers who try to find a way to make a contract please their client—even when it's wrong.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:18 PM
This has been pretty much my position since this 14th Amendment angle has been mentioned. You can always find lawyers who try to find a way to make a contract please their client—even when it's wrong.

I've heard way too many smart people floating this today on the talking heads shows. It always gets batted down (and batted down hard -- except over at MSNBC) but it has me wondering if Obama is stupid enough to try to carve out some interpretation and is seeing how high it will fly with the media. I can't believe smart people are so stupid as to find any interpretation of the Constitution other than what is in there -- then again I guess it all matters on what the meaning of the word "law" is...

If he were to do this it would really become a crisis...

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 03:19 PM
I've heard way too many smart people floating this today on the talking heads shows. It always gets batted down (and batted down hard -- except over at MSNBC) but it has me wondering if Obama is stupid enough to try to carve out some interpretation and is seeing how high it will fly with the media. I can't believe smart people are so stupid as to find any interpretation of the Constitution other than what is in there -- then again I guess it all matters on what the meaning of the word "law" is...

If he were to do this it would really become a crisis...

Lack of money usually makes people desperate, I guess.

RINGLEADER
07-29-2011, 03:34 PM
Lack of money usually makes people desperate, I guess.

If only we could tax your casino cash...

BucEyedPea
07-29-2011, 03:35 PM
If only we could tax your casino cash...

LMAO I never even noticed it but looked just now. ROFL