Bill Clinton: I'd use 14th Amendment

Politico ^

[wendell]

Unfortunately, traitors like clinton and obama are quick to divert attention from this part of the 14th Amendment:

3. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

In plain english it means that traitors like clinton and obama are not fit to drive a garbage truck in Chicago.

Maybe obama would like to read section 4, which prohibits reparations to former slaves and their ancestors.

[Buckeye McFrog]

well, coming from a guy who was willing to push the edge of the envelope in any way he possibly could, and who appears to have largely gotten away with it....what would you expect?

[SvenMagnussen]

Slick Willie is setting up Obama for Constitutional failure and a big loss in 2012.

Revenge is the nectar of a scoundrel.

[dusttoyou]

Klintoon is urging nobama to step right on that landmine, figuring hitlery will be drafted to Save the Day.
Slick was the grandest user of polls and all the dem’s internals without any doubt are showing landmines and quicksand ahead for the WON.

[Tallguy]

“Constitutional Scholar” was used to describe Bill Clinton as well as Barak Obama prior to the launch of each political career. I’m starting to think that the term is a euphamism for “Underemployed Lawyer”.

[Norseman]

>>Actually, that debt ceiling is a useless measure ...

The debt ceiling simply says that is the limit a President may spend regardless of congressional authorization to spend otherwise. In no way does it limit congress.<<

So, explain why it’s “useless.” It’s the limiting of Obama’s spending that’s at issue here, and so far everyone seems to be taking it pretty seriously. Obama’s hit the debt ceiling, and Congress now has control unless they give it up by giving him what he wants.

[Norseman]

>>no constitutional atty here - but the argument is that since the money was appropriated then THAT is the “authorized by law”.<<

Spending and borrowing (to support spending) are two entirely different matters.

You can sign a contract to purchase something and be legally obligated to pay for it whether you have the money or not. You authorized someone to dun you for what you owe them.

You can also sign a contract to borrow money, agreeing to pay interest and principal as stipulated in the contract.

But they are two different matters entirely. Maybe the reason people get confused about this is that we often do both at once, signing contracts to purchase a house or car, for instance, while simultaneously signing lending agreements that enable us to get the money to make the purchase. Still, they are two separate matters.

[Principled]

Thanks for that information -

so while the spending _was_ appropriated, it was not _authorized_ so 14th amendment won’t fly.

[Norseman]

>>so while the spending _was_ appropriated, it was not _authorized_ so 14th amendment won’t fly.<<

You’re welcome, but it would be less confusing if you instead said: Spending was authorized (appropriated), but the debt to fund the spending was not authorized.

Even then, if a contract hasn’t been signed, say with a defense contractor for instance, the spending might have been appropriated, but the government might not yet be on the hook for it and can just revoke the appropriation. Funds are redirected all the time in that manner by all levels of government. Appropriations are essentially budgets set by law and can be changed unless the money is committed by a formal contract with the party providing the service being paid for.

All this talk about using the 14th is just liberal BS, though I have no doubt a liberal would force the issue through the courts if he felt like doing so. Pathetically, a liberal court would probably ignore the Constitution and let it happen, but that’s another issue.

[CodeToad]

“so far everyone seems to be taking it pretty seriously.”

As a grandstanding exercise. Congress authorizes pending. The President can only spend what they authorize.

What they are saying is that Congress has only authorized spending of so much and they are reaching that so much. Congress can simply authorize spending more. This “Debt Ceiling” is not anything any future Congress must obey. This entire talk about a “debt ceiling” is no ceiling at all. With or without it, Congress can authorize spending whatever they desire but the President can only spend what they authorize. The President was never able to ever spend more than that, but he could spend into debt if Congress authorized it. The law limited his ability to add debt without their approval even though they authorized the spending.

This is all pretending to be serious about the debt. The congress has never failed, since its inception in 1917, to increase the debt ceiling. No future Congress is ever bound by a previous Congress concerning spending. That is the Constitutional authority of Congress.

The law of the “debt ceiling” was the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. All it did that was authoritative was to limit the President’s (read: Treasury) ability to issue debt to pay for spending authorizations of Congress. So, since 1917, if Congress authorized spending beyond the debt ceiling, the President no longer could issue Treasury instruments of debt to pay for it. It also means Congress has acted wantonly in it spending and has lost control and track of what it is spending such that it did not know or understand that they were spending into debt and the President needed to issue instruments of debt.

So, the seriousness that you see is that if Congress does not authorize the President to spend more than the debt ceiling authorizes then he cannot add debt to cover Congress’s out of control spending. In no way does a debt ceiling prohibit Congress from authorizing any level of spending or debt that it desires. The vote they take on it is purely symbolic for themselves and an authorization for the President.

[Lazamataz]

Former President Bill Clinton would invoke the 14th Amendment - “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me,” he says - to raise the debt ceiling if he were in President Barack Obama’s shoes, with the deadline to raise the limit just two weeks away.

Every time I'm tempted to look back on the 1990's with nostalgia, Bill C*mstain reminds me that he's every bit as bad as Obama.

[Norseman]

You seem to be missing the essential point that 1/2 of the Congress, the House, is on our side in this matter and that the debt ceiling is the reason all this negotiating is going on. Without it, the House would have no say in the matter.

Yes, eventually the debt ceiling will be raised. The question is will we get something in return for doing so, or just get rolled by the Administration and increase it for symbolic political gain, or worse, while agreeing to tax increases.

If we get something significant, I’d hardly call it “grandstanding.” If we don’t, it will indeed have been just that.

[CodeToad]

“Without it, the House would have no say in the matter.”

Um, they always have a say. They make the budget. They can reign in that budget.

Grandstanding? Hell, yes, it is grandstanding. It was in 1917 and it still is today. Once again, the House makes the budget. They don’t have to authorize squat if they don’t want to.

What exactly is it that you expect to “get” out of all this grandstanding? All we taxpayers are getting is more of the same: Tax & Spend!

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Sub-Driver.