Debt ceiling called unconstitutional

yahoo ^ | 6-30-2011 | edcoil

[edcoil]

As both major parties debate their conditions for raising the nation's debt ceiling, some Senate Democrats and constitutional scholars are questioning whether the limit is constitutional in the first place.

[edcoil]

Dems at work again.

[skeeter]

This assertion doesn't pass the giggle test.

Of course its right in line with Yahoo News' reporting standards.

[NativeSon]

Since when have the Dims EVER been concerned with the Constitution? : Income Tax, Free stuff for everyone, Forced Gub’mint takeover of healthcare, drug laws, enforcing that only natural born citizens shall be president, protecting our borders from invaders

[KarlInOhio]

What an immensly stupid argument. It is based on the 14th amendment’s statement:”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 completely ignores the three clear words “authorized by law”. “Authorized by law” makes it clear that there is some method for authorizing the public debt, i.e. Skippy the Intern at the Department of Energy can’t put a new nuclear reactor on order with Net 30 payment terms and claim that the debt “shall not be questioned” because he isn’t “authorized by law” to incur that debt. Similarly the debt ceiling is a law limiting what debt can be “authorized by law”.

[cripplecreek]

But taxing the citizenry to poverty is A-OK.

[kingu]

They only care about the constitution when they can abuse it, or make up stuff about what it says to further their agenda. Otherwise, it's a useless restraint on an enlightened community that is outdated and outmoded from this generation.

And of course, the EU’s telephone book sized constitution is exactly what they'd prefer - something unintelligible for any citizen to read and demand enforced.

[FewsOrange]

“the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law”

The debt BELOW the debt ceiling (ie. the debt authorized by law) is valid.

The debt ABOVE the debt ceiling (ie. the debt that has NOT been authorized by law) is invalid.

[DManA]

Before they instituted the debt ceiling Congress had to approve every bond issuance. They considered that too much work. If they want to go back to that fine.

[Da Coyote]

Would not “democrat consitutional scholar” be an Oxymoron?

[EternalVigilance]

The Secret of Oz

I will be interviewing Bill Still, the creator of this important film, tonight on the 'America's Summit, Restore the Republic' call. Please feel free to join us and ask him questions yourself if you would like. The call begins at 9 pm EST. The call information and the Talkshoe Radio link are HERE.

If you really want to understand the source of our economic woes, this is information you have take the time to absorb.

[DManA]

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons told The Huffington Post this week that he's part of a group of lawmakers now examining whether, in the case that debt negotiations fail, the Treasury could ignore Congress and continue paying its bills on time.

That's what we've been saying. The world doesn't come crashing down around our ears if the debt limit is reached. Income still comes in. Treasury has PLENTY of money to pay interest on the debt, and lots of other things.

[loveliberty2]

"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers."(Underlining added for emphasis) --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39

And, it was Thomas Jefferson who used another metaphor with reference to the Constitution when he indicated that "the People" must "bind them (government) by the chains of the Constitution." In another instance, he declared: "It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers. . . ."

Clearly, the Founders understood human nature and the human tendency to abuse power, once delegated. Their Constitution set strict limits on the various powers which "the People" would allow their representatives in government.

The Far Left in 21st Century America, with all the centuries of recorded history available to them, and with all available psychological studies of human behavior, nevertheless, operate with this "fantastical" theory that the opposite is true.

Is it deliberate, or is it total ignorance and lack of the gift of reason?

See Dr. George Carey's essay on the "Founding Fathers' Views of Human Nature" here

". . . it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety for our rights. . . it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go. . . . In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."- Thomas Jefferson

[EGPWS]

As both major parties debate their conditions for raising the nation's debt ceiling, some Senate Democrats and constitutional scholars are questioning whether the limit is constitutional in the first place.

Well Gosh, that would be a first, something coming out of the DC beltway that is against what the Constitution stands for. /MS

So why the fuss now you corrupting anti-Constitution freedom destroyers?

[OB1kNOb]

Democrats use the Constitution like they use the Bible, only when they think it can be twisted and used to fit their desires.

[SMARTY]

So, now we are going to criminalize common sense?

[boomop1]

Their interpretation of the constitution is selective.

[cotton1706]

If by this they mean that the treasury secretary can just keep on borrowing, they’re mistaken. All revenue sources must go through the House of Representatives. And any foreign nation should be cautious to lend America money without the people’s consent because the people would then bear no responsibilty to pay it back.

[mrsmith]

.

In Bizarro World it’s ‘constitutional’ for one congress to require future congresses to borrow and spend money as they say...

[cripplecreek]

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear.

- GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

[BitWielder1]

They want a free unlimited credit card, paid for by someone else.
Just like the one their voters believe they can have.
Guess who that "someone else" is.