Do you mean the term that says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"? I wasn't aware that "Congress" means "the President."
Then he'd better resign himself to not vetoing Congress's bill, as he's threatened to do.
When has the Constitution prevented any president from doing what he wanted? My personal memory goes back to when Truman nationalized the railroads.
Just in case anyone took that statement seriously, it was the Eisenhower administration who made it the official motto and had it added to paper money. In 1956.
I shouldn't do this but.....
I happened to find a link that shows the breakdown of the federal Budget proposal for 2012. It doesn=92t go deep enough and I need to look at things on a higher level than I wanted but it gave me enough insight that I wanted to puke. After I read this, I have been thinking about these things and more:
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 a monarchy.
But you'll note, we tried to work within the system.
Oh well.
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.
Actually, the founding fathers said, in the 1st Amendment, that the FEDERAL government should stay out of the religion business; states were free to have their own state church (which several, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, did). It wasn't until 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education) that the 1st Amendment's clause on religion became binding on the individual states.
Can't do that. The government doesn't print money (well, it does, but under contract to the Federal Reserve). But what the government CAN do is mint coins. By executive fiat, the government could design and create a, say, $100 coin (made out of pure aluminum) and monetize the debt with billions of dollars worth of soda cans.
There is no such thing as a "viable" third-party candidate. The closest we've ever come to that was when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose" candidate. His candidacy cost Howard Taft the election and handed the presidency to Woodrow Wilson (arguably the most venal president we've EVER had).
Third party candidates take votes away from the major party candidate to which they are closest. If Al Gore decides to run as a 3rd party candidate, he'll take votes away from Obama. If Ron Paul decides to run, he'll take votes from Rick Perry.
What would be fun is if BOTH Gore and Paul decided to run!
Another online chain letter?
You USanians are suckers for anything and everything.
---------------
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by
08/02/2011.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.
Lew
The United States maintains a military presence in over 180 countries (and I'm not talking about Marine guards at the embassies). Certainly the larger ones (Japan, Germany, UK0 could be reduced or eliminated.
We don't give money to anybody. We give credits they can use to buy U.S. stuff, such as military equipment or wheat.
Because he paid into the Social Security system for most of his life. We call it "Social Security," but the program's real name is " Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance" (OASDI) program. Note the word "insurance." No other insurance vehicle determines claim amounts based on how much you make.
Good idea. Maimonides listed thirteen levels of charity. The worst was publicly and officiously giving a poor person money. The best kind of charity? Loaning someone sufficient funds for him to start a business.
Ooo! I LIKE that idea!
"HeyBub" wrote in news:vsudnYkzSdOKgq7TnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
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 ...
Larry Blanchard wrote in news:j0v2ih$fak$3 @speranza.aioe.org:
yes,
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 government.
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.
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 didn?t think the Repubs had come up with the better ticket.
Dammit, there's always some guy who's gotta blurt out the punchline halfway through the joke.
Some folks insist that the Founders didn't want an armed citizenry aside from service in a state militia. Actually the Founders made it clear that an armed citizenry independent of the state was exactly what they wanted, some of them wrote and spoke on the subject in very clear terms, just as they did on the subject of how undesirable it was for govt. and religion to be mixed. The courts consider such extra-constitutional evidence when they are interpreting the Constitution, which seems a reasonable thing to do when trying to figure out what the Founders *meant* which is the role which inevitably came to the courts.
Pretty much the theme of the Bill of Rights.
They had to agree to legal slavery for the same reason, but that doesn't mean many weren't holding their noses when they signed.
Put me down on the list of those who are pleased that the courts went that route, state religions are things of horror.
Q. Why have so many National Guard units been called to active duty over the past several decades? A. Because the federal military budget is not large enough for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to fulfill their missions.
Do you have any evidence that Warren Buffett is collecting SS, or using Medicare? I dunno, but I rather suspect most ultra-wealthy do not participate because they can afford not to, and it's not worth the hassle for them.
I agree with the concept, BUT, in our present economy and high unemployment rates, do you really expect that newly trained plumbers, hairdressers etc. will be able to find unemployment when even experienced workers cannot? Your solution would have to address that problem. One alternative would be that instead of unearned welfare benefits, they would have to work for the government, mowing lawns, cleaning toilets, picking up litter, whatever, at 75% of the minimum wage rate. They could either do that, or go out and get a private sector job, but they couldn't simply sit at home watching TV on the government dole.
It's not clear to me why you think that makes any difference. The amendment refers to public debts authorized by law -- but there is no language there restricting when, or how, such debts might be authorized. The historical context of that clause shows that its purpose was to allow the United States to repudiate debts incurred by the Confederacy or by individual Confederate States, because those debts had *not* been "authorized by law."
It simply isn't applicable to the current situation.
snipped-for-privacy@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:j0vku2$s56$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
I didn't make myself clear. Congress has clearly authorized expenditures that now result in what we call too much debt, by running deficit after deficit for however many years (there were a few years with nominal surpluses). To me (but IANAL!!) that means those debts were authorized as per the 14th amendment. The later law setting a debt limit does or doesn't make the 14th amendment moot. That is the question I am asking (remember, IANAL). I am guessing that no one has challenged the debt limit law, since Congress has always raised the limit in time.
Please remember also that I came to the US as a 23 year-old biomedical researcher, and am only a citizen since 1984 or so. Since I am now retired, I have more time for discussions .
HomeOwnersHub website 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.