Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Fourteenth Amendment will be used

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 14, 2013, 8:13 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If you listened carefully to Obama today, he told us that congress ordered him to spend this money and I am 99% sure he will use the 14th to do it


Despite what the Rs and faux noose claim, raising the debt ceiling spends no money at all. It tells the world that we will pay the bills PREVIOUSLY passed by congress - i ncluding the crazy Rs.

President Obama should IMMEDIATELY invoke the 14th Amendment to hike the debt ceiling unilaterally to prevent a government default.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer & Nancy Pelosi agree. “It’s his power to do so,” Hoyer told MSNBC. “Very frankly, if it came down to his looking default in the eye or taking this action, as President Clinton said, better to take the action and find out later that perhaps he went beyond his authority but at least protected the credibility of the United States of America.”
“The Republicans, through their failure, have given you license to do whatever it takes to not let the American family go down into the abyss,” Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus said.

The republiclans are looking forward to using the threat of a default and worldwide financial disaster to blackmail the President and the Senate into cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This WORKED in August 2011! The Rs, after gerrymandering districts, suppressing the vote, cheating with voting machines and telling endless lies – still could not resume their wealth transfer plans from the 99% to the 1% using normal political power.

So their primary weapon is blackmail.

Many observers of the debt-limit debate have said the 14th Amendment which states that the


“the validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned”


obligates the president to pay the debt - regardless of the ceiling.

62 Comments

62 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the debt ceiling is a joke

like the term of housing being worth less than what we pay the bank,

houses have always been less than what we pay the bank for them

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

If we stop printing and using FRN's we wouldn't have this huge mess. Criminalize bankers and put an end to crony-economics forever.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

how

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Having an economy that is connected to a strong currency of trade (be that BTC, or even a community currency) that produces career based jobs instead of 'seat filling' positions, will sustain itself. Also instead of force feeding taxes and earmarks through our national debt the currency will be citizen controlled.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"having" is not "doing"
EXACTLY how can your above goals be accomplished
We could outlaw greed or the dollar
currency is citizen controlled?????????
sort of like our hospitals & food inspectors should be ordinary citizens

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

1) Instate local currencies through democratically, citizen-run unions 2)refuse FRN and USD deposits w/o currency conversion 3)prosecute those propagating financial terrorism

Also citizens could own/sell their own energy by creating solar fields. This would provide a sustainable choice for both energy and the local economy.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

specifically, how do you legally do 1 2 3 ?
are there any polls of Americans that prove these ideas have strong support?

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Yes you can legally accept or reject any currency in your community if the town votes it in.

There are a lot of polls out there. There has been an outcry internationally for alternative currencies.

As far as prosecution goes, that will have to be taken up with the court system, rather than a decentralized system. However, anyone of us can gather evidence to support cases to bring the criminals to justice.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Yes you can legally accept or reject any currency in your community if the town votes it in.
"Our currency is legal tender for all debts - public or private"
You say my local Sears has to accept my wooden nickels if my town vote that in?


There are a lot of polls out there. There has been an outcry internationally for alternative currencies. Can you direct me to just one of these "lots of polls"

[-] 2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

read the 14th, obama or any president is not empowerd by it to rise the debt ceiling.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

specifically, the debt ceiling is an unconstitutional constraint on the 14th
“the validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned” means that the President is constitutionally obligated to pay our debts

[-] 0 points by MoodDaddy (25) 1 year ago

You don't need to raise the debt ceiling to pay our debts. We only have to pay the interest on the debt which is less than 7% of the federal budget.

You don't need to raise the debt ceiling to pay Social Security or Medicare either since they are funded by specific payroll taxes.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

the 14th refers to the debt that the usa accrued fighting the civil war. part of the conditions for the the confederate states coming back into the union was that they had to help shoulder those expenses. the 14th goes along with the 13 and 15 amendments.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The origin of the words is correct - but most economists agree that the 14th can be used here - and only a long process ending with a SCOTUS decision can do anything about it
and even if SCOTUS agreed -2-3 years from now that Obama overstepped his authority, they could DO nothing about his saving the world's economy

[-] 3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"saving the world's economy"?

Is this a joke?

Dolla dolla bill yall

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

What do leading economists think would happen if US defaults? Specifically? What & who?

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

They think that the US would be the dumbest nation on the planet, because the interest payments are so low, that to defualt while the money from taxes still coming into the system, would prove them to be completely idiotic.

If you had a choice between making payments on all your cars, lots of em, or paying your mortgage, I hoping you would pay the roof over your head and then wise up and sell some of the cars.

Dont fall for the default nonsense. Raise it or not, if they defualt its because they wanted to. Probably another manufactured crisis.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

And which economists are you getting this from?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Here's a few:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/09/10/impossible-to-default/

You really buy that bullshit? The "full faith and credit" garbage?

You realize they are printing 85 billion a MONTH right now, without anything that has to do with Congress? Completely outside the system.

If they defualt on that puny interest payment, while taxes are still going into the system, and a monetary system that is functioning outside of conggress, its because they want to.

Whether you like Greenspan or not, he's right on that one.

220 Billion a year on interest. Thats about 2.5 months of printing that the Fed is doing right now.

If it happens, its because they want it to.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Your link has good info - but does not specifically explain how the debt ceiling can be ignored - without the 14th

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

economists agreee????????????? how about constitutional scholars ( no , obama is not one, he was a visiting lecturer, in fact he both he and his wife had to surrender their law licenses).

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

faux noose shill - the TRUTH from FactCheck.org

The Obamas’ Law Licenses Posted on June 14, 2012

Q: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?

A: No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

no lawyer voluntarily surrenders their law license . if they do, its about 5 seconds before the state suspends you.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so you are claiming you know more abot this than factcheck.org???
where is your web site?

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

the annenberg public policy center (APPC) at UPenn. is behind factcheck. its left biased even though it sells itself as politically neutral.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

and your "better than factcheck" is where ?

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

do your own search

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I searched - I found your source in your toilet

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

In June of 2012, Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that the 14th Amendment makes the federal Debt Limit unconstitutional. According to the House Democrat Leader, Barack Obama could avoid the whole debt-ceiling showdown with Republicans by simply invoking the "obscure constitutional provision" in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to Pelosi, the statutory borrowing limit is inconsistent with Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned." Her suggestion comes a year after Bill Clinton said he'd use the 14th Amendment if he were Obama in a 2011 speech.


Washington's penchant for high-stakes drama is now manifesting itself in another fight over the debt limit, with some top Democrats suggesting that President Barack Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment and raise the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling unilaterally.

The White House continues to throw cold water on the idea, saying it doesn't believe the U.S. Constitution gives it authority to bypass Congress when it comes to issuing debt.

The reality is that the White House will be forced to invoke the 14th Amendment if a debt ceiling increase isn't agreed to next month. And it can do this without deploying the nuclear option of issuing new debt absent congressional authorization.

First, the facts: The U.S. reached its $16.4 trillion legal borrowing limit on Dec. 31, prompting the U.S. Treasury Department to begin using so-called extraordinary measures to finance the government and continue making interest payments. To free up money, Treasury can shift government-employee retirement funds out of Treasury securities and into idle cash, withhold year-end interest payments to government trust funds and employ other accounting maneuvers. Those efforts, however, will be exhausted by the end of February, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because the U.S. runs a budget deficit, it must borrow money to fund the government, but the authority to borrow more than the current $16.4 trillion limit rests with Congress. Without an increase, the U.S. will be unable to fund its obligations, such as Social Security payments, government salaries, interest on the debt and other expenses. Going down this rabbit hole would lead to a wave of government defaults, forcing the U.S. to violate the full faith and credit pledge it made to investors. The economic toll from such an outcome would make the last recession look like a bubble.

How will the U.S. avoid this scenario? Obama will face a stark choice, one that will invariably lead him to invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment. The Reconstruction-era provision was passed to prevent political wrangling over the debt after the Civil War as some feared Southerners returning to Congress would use the public debt to extract political concessions (sound familiar?).

Put simply, the provision requires the president not to put the validity of the public debt into question. (The section's language states: "the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.") That's prompted some Democrats like California Representative Nancy Pelosi, Illinois Senator Richard Durbin and former President Bill Clinton to recommend that the White House invoke the amendment to unilaterally increase the debt limit without Congress' consent.

The White House needn't go that far. As Yale University Law School professor Jack Balkin has pointed out in numerous blog posts, Section 4 means the president is constitutionally obligated to make sure interest payments on the debt continue and that bondholders continue to get paid. Failure to do so would violate the constitution, because it would call into question the validity of U.S. debt.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17713) 1 year ago

LOL

I'll bet you didn't say that when Reagan was president.

Or how about reading GHWBs lips?

LOL

(R)epelican't nonsense.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

the conversation is about obama and his threat to circumvent congress, his threat to disregard the 2nd amendment.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 1 year ago

LOL again.

Show me please where the 2nd even so much as mentions "guns"

It doesn't and you and all the assholes at the NRA know it doesn't.

There's been some form of "arms" control almost since the day it was written.

It's time for the, and here's the truth of who they are, gun fetishists, to finally understand that the rest of us are sick and tired of gun carnage in all it's putrid forms.

They have yet to give a single inch that they have not clawed and scratched to get back. Often at great expense to life and limb among the innocent, the non gun fetishists. Oh, and a high level of tax payer expense too.

I have listened to their threats of violence for decades now. Before I ever heard of the NRA.

Here's the bottom line.

Since the fetishists won't offer any kind of significant compromise. A significant inch, if you will, something will still be done and I doubt that you will like it. But you have been offered many chances to help find a solution.

YOU have failed to do so.

You have given us threats.

YOU have given us Alex Jones.

YOU have given us that wild eyed guy in Tennessee, that just plain threatened to start shooting.

YOU have given us other even more militant militias, that threaten to do the same.

All based on lies.

NO!

It's you who needs to understand OUR position.

We're sick of it.

If you won't help fix it, you really are part of the problem.

If you won't fix it?

Somebody else will.

And even if I personally, don't care for their solution, I will still thank them for trying.

I can be no more candid with you.

Here's another bottom line about how OWS has shown your BS about protecting us from tyranny is also far off point.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/12/how-occupy-proved-we-dont-need-guns-against-the-government/

Grow up.

Too many innocents are dying.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

'arms " are guns. a disarmed society is open to govt tryanny. thats why the 2nd amendment is there in the bill of rights.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 1 year ago

It doesn't say that.

It says arms and you can't have any kind of "arms" that you want..

You haven't said shit about REAL tyranny in MIchigan, so take your crap about it and flush it.

It's a lie and it always was.

It's time for the, and here's the truth of who they are, gun fetishists, to finally understand that the rest of us are sick and tired of gun carnage in all it's putrid forms.

They have yet to give a single inch that they have not clawed and scratched to get back. Often at great expense to life and limb among the innocent, the non gun fetishists. Oh, and a high level of tax payer expense too.

I have listened to their threats of violence for decades now. Before I ever heard of the NRA.

Here's the bottom line.

Since the fetishists won't offer any kind of significant compromise. A significant inch, if you will, something will still be done and I doubt that you will like it. But you have been offered many chances to help find a solution.

YOU have failed to do so.

You have given us threats.

YOU have given us Alex Jones.

YOU have given us that wild eyed guy in Tennessee, that just plain threatened to start shooting.

YOU have given us other even more militant militias, that threaten to do the same.

All based on lies.

NO!

It's you who needs to understand OUR position.

We're sick of it.

If you won't help fix it, you really are part of the problem.

If you won't fix it?

Somebody else will.

And even if I personally, don't care for their solution, I will still thank them for trying.

I can be no more candid with you.

Here's another bottom line about how OWS has shown your BS about protecting us from tyranny is also far off point.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/12/how-occupy-proved-we-dont-need-guns-against-the-government/

Grow up.

Too many innocents are dying.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

reposting garbage is still garbage.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 1 year ago

Except that it isn't and you haven't dealt with a single word of it.

Did you read the link?

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

i read your link,......so?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 1 year ago

Low comprehension then?

You wouldn't happen to be someone who shoots guns a lot, would you?

[-] 0 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

no, i dont shoot guns,............never have. but i believe in the 2nd amendment,...which assures each citizen that they have the tools necessary to defend their life, family or property from agression , whether from an individual or the govt.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 1 year ago

Too busy sniffing paint then?

I mean it must be something for you to misjudge reality this poorly.

It doesn't say anything at about protection from self government aggression.

It just doesn't say that and doesn't really even imply it.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

if thats what you want to believe ( or are told to push) go for it,...........you are laughable.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 1 year ago

"it was about taxation without representation"

Nope. That ain't it. At least not directly.

Would it help if I told you the Dutch were involved?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17713) 1 year ago

It's you who is believing something that isn't there.

Do you also think the Boston Tea Party was over high taxes?

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

it was about taxation without representation

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The employers, thru their subsidiary, club for growth, has indicated their support for NOT fighting over the debt ceiling. .
My re-evaluation now conclueds that Obama won this one.
In a few weeks we may have a sequester or shut down -
but that is survivable

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

A numer of Rs leaders - from rush to blackburn and newt, etc.
are urging NO FIGHT on the debt ceiling
MAYBE this will not become the tombstone for the Rs & the world economy

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

He may decide to invoke the 14th Amendment but will Congress provide the necessary funding? I don't think so.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Congress can do nothing to stop this
unless they complete IMPEACHMENT in both houses before he does it
You do understand that the money already has been spent?

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

What you don't understand is he is limited in what he can do with regard to the 14th Amendment.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

what is that limit? how is it enforced?

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Obama can't use his executive priviledge in any way shape or form that infringes on the power of congress.

In other words, he is restricted in what he can and can't do. If he initiated an executive order that would undermind the power of congress then it would be unconstitutional.

.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

faux noose has you well trained

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well, lets see what transpires tomorrow shall we?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The repubs WILL cave before there is a need for the 14th amendment because their 1% corp oligarch puppet masters will put pressure on them to avoid the default & disruption to their profiteering.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

BINGO!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repubs wrong on debt ceiling issue

They've been kinda quiet about it. And the 1% corp oligarchs are squimin. The repubs had to make some noise in the middle of the fiscal cliff battle but they will not do that debt ceiling suicide dance again.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Bullshit! The debt ceiling is raised to provide more money to pay for more government. The debt ceiling is the credit limit. The government has done nothing to prove its worthiness to have the debt ceiling raised. there is no private citizen who would have their credit limit raised with the kind of track record that Washington has. The creditors would at least like to see the balance go down. I am wicked and cruel and would like to see the government tank if it cannot meet the simple criteria of serious budget cuts before the ceiling is raised.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You listen to too much faux noose
If you want America to SPEND less, tell congress not to
THEY authorized this spending
and the constitution authorizes the President to pay this debt

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

to pay the private banks more government money through interest

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I hope the Pres does use something to circumvent Repub refusal to rais debt ceiling and disrupt the world economy.

I have to say though that I think the repubs will back off, they already appear to be walking back the threats.

I think our efforts are best spent pressuring all pols (repubs mainly) to implement additional progressive tax policy to deal with any coming budgetary issues (sequester, cont resolution, as well as debt ceil.) and protect all pgms for the 99% from conservative axe.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I hope the Pres Does use something to circumvent Repub refusal to raising debt ceiling and disrupt the world economy.

I have to say though that I think the repubs will back off, they already appear to be walking back the threats.

I think our efforts are best spent pressuring all pols (repubs mainly) to implement additional progressive tax policy to deal with any coming budgetary issues (sequester, cont resolution, as well as debt ceil.) and protect all pgms for the 99% from conservative axe.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I feel Obama has finally learned his lesson about his adversary,
and he is a great "chess" player.
I hope he is just manipulating the Rs to make them look crazy.
And at the last minute, he will act and pay the bills congress has ordered him to pay.
I think this speech on one hand demanded that the Rs stop being blackmailers, he told the markets - that he will act like he should.


A default will not only destroy the world economy, it will severely damage the people who pay congress


In 2-3 weeks, I'd like to see Obama make a speech - with charts - showing specifically what could happen if we default
[Ed Schultz did this last nite on MSNBC]


His game should be to destroy R credibility with the TRUTH
just like the Rs tried to destroy his credibility with LIES

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Exactly! The 1% corp oligarchs do NOT want the repubs to engineer a default.

The Pres should sit back and let repubs do that dance. Repubs WILL cave!

And they will do so well before the deadline. If they get too close to the deadline with no action, they Pres will look better and better.

Keep his powder dry for the battles over the continuing resolution, & sequester vote. Stay focused on implementing additional progressive tax policy & protecting the pgms of the 99%.