The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by
As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise
the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment.
Obama will not allow default to happen.
Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do
that. You really need to read it "all" for yourself, rather than just
taking someone's word for it.
Its kinda like the phrase that is supposed to be in the First Amendment, but
isn;t. You know, "Seperation of Church and State."
Liberals keep makings claims, which for a liberal makes it true,
irrespective of reality. Of course, if you are a liberal you really don't
like dealing with that nasty subject anyway, because it messes up otherwise
perfectly good claims and agnedas.
I'm a proud liberal, though a fiscal conservative. I believe in a
balanced budget, but also in deficit spending in times of need for such.
I do NOT believe there will be a default. The idiots in Congress WILL
get to a last minute compromise. Until now everyone in Congress and the
administration (pfft on you too) has just been posturing (hey, they are
politicians!). The idiot TP members (what else does TP stand for besides
Tea Party?) may not understand compromise, but that'll make them
excellent 1-term people makinf a point. The idiot free-spenders will get
their one-comeuppance (sp?) too. Someone will finally notice that we
have a simple choice. Generate jobs (=spending which=inflation) or
unemployment (ήpression). The alternative is to also generate revenue.
I'm a biochemist (retired), not an economist, but then I'll pay any
single one economist a grand prize of $2.== for finding the solution ...
Interestingly, the Constitution is much like the Bible. It doesn't mattery
what it SAYS; the only thing that counts is what it MEANS.
In the non-Catholic tradition, interpretation of scripture is left up to the
individual, guided by the Holy Spirit. Many Protestants carry over that
technique to the reading of the Constitution.
In fact, the Constitution is more like the Catholic methodology: It is the
Supreme Court (Holy See) that is charged with deciding what is meant, not
the individual in the pew.
That said, should Obama invoke some evanescent power via the 14th Amendment,
a couple of extreme things will result: a) An immediate appeal will be taken
to a federal court, who will be completely flummoxed since the judiciary
REALLY does not like to meddle in the operation of another branch, and/or b)
Somebody will introduce an impeachment motion in the House that will NOT be
dismissed out of hand.
I can see it now: The military, getting no paychecks, march on Washington
much like the Bonus Army of 1932 except there will be no Douglas McArthur to
confront them with tanks and bayonets. Instead of having their wives and
children along, granny ladies without Social Security checks will be
carrying the pitchforks and the poor who can't get Medicaid will be carrying
the torches. The SEIU will provide the T-shirts and the AFGE will provide
Finally, we will be living in interesting times.
Late in Bush's second term some left-wingnuts were pushing the idea that
Bush was planning to stage a false-flag terrorist attack on the U.S. so he
could suspend the 2008 election and hold onto power indefinitely so among
other things he could attack Iran.
And now we have you claiming Obama wants to declare martial law and become
dictator for life, proof (if any were needed) that when considering
left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts, the operative word is "wingnut".
A right-wing president becoming president for life is more likely to succeed
than a left-wing president, but less likely to happen.
If it DID happen we right-wingers could sustain the coup because we have
most of the guns. On the other hand, right wingers just don't do force and
intimidation very well.
Here's an example: Instead of McCain, many of us were rooting for Jeb Bush.
After him, that good-looking Hispanic Bush nephew for eight years. By then
the legacy would be firmly established and it would be only a small step to
But you'll note, we tried to work within the system.
At first, I could have voted for McCain (would have been unlikely, but it
seemed possible). Then he went of the deep end in his opinions, and tried
to cover that up with a cover girl. Sorry, Twitsie did him in for good.
And that is my opinion, YOU know the facts ...
It's too bad Karl Rove was able to torpedo McCain's campaign in 2000, if he
had become President it seems reasonable to me he wouldn't have been so
quick to go to war with a nation that hadn't attacked the U.S.
I hadn't made up my mind between McCain and Obama until after it became
apparent just how bad Caribou Barbie really was, that did it for me. First
time in decades I didnt think the Repubs had come up with the better
But the government would lack enough people to actually FIRE all the guns
they have warehoused.
Today's military is not composed of automatons or cannon-fodder. Today's
general is well aware that the corporal running the radio is as much an
expert at his job as the general is at his.
The American soldier will NEVER fire on American civilians, no matter who
gives the order (unless, of course, those civilians are rioting hippies).
In other words, meaning lies within the perview of the reader and not the
author. Interesting. So what you are advocating is a rebellion with the
military marching on Washington. That could get you charged with sedition,
which is a somewhat serious thing, in case you did not know.
Before you respond, I was not serious in the above. I was merely using your
hermeneutical prinicple. Its amazing how quickly liberal politics, theology
and philosophy are abandonded when those prinicples are brought to bear on
us and our posiitons by our opponent. :-)
No, you were misinterpreting. Nowhere did I advocate marching on Washington,
violence, or tormenting cats. That's your own reading.
And far from hermeneutical principles being abandoned, I was applying them
to the situation at hand. Hermeneutics and the Theory of Law have much in
common, so it's fairly straightforward to use the tools of one to make sense
of the other.
Yeah, you tell 'em, if the Founders really wanted separation of church and
state then why did they put "In God We Trust" on the money?
"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties
consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in
addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things
I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman
church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant
church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish,
appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave
mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
The man of whom it was said (by John Adams), "Without the pen of Paine the
sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain."
However the Founders did not seek "separation of church and state". The
First Amendment has unusual wording--"Congress shall make no law
resepecting an establishment of religion". In other words it's a
restriction specifically on what laws may be enacted by the Federal
The reason that that particular item was included in the Bill of Rights
was that several states had state religions at the time and would not
have ratified the Constitution if there had been a chance that the
Federal government would override that state religion.
One can argue that incorporating it under the fourteenth to restrict the
actions of state governments is at variance with the original intent,
however that would be an uphill battle at this point.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.