All too well.
You should look up what Virginia pays appointed defense lawyers, even when the budget is working.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the country was debt-free until that socialist Obama showed up in the white house and gave away tons of money to his campaign supporters.
You also seem to be misinformed as to when the major financial crisis first hit the country - hint, it was before Obama was elected.
He took over the presidency with a shit-ton of debt, and an economy that was in free-fall.
The unemployment rate is now back to where it was before, and it’s trajectory is improving. The economy is also improving, after it was pretty much tanked by the previous administration.
The debt is still a problem, because of the 8 years previous to Obama’s presidency, and the costs of the wars and the reduction in tax payments to the government. Bush’s tax cuts? Now THAT can be seen as giving money to people who funded Bush’s campaign.
Or, for the analytically challenged, in graph form.
Thank you!
A picture is worth a thousand words they say…
Let’s start with your abridged quote:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
The Debt Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains Congress from refusing to pay “…obligations which the government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” (Quoting Perry v. US, 294 U.S. 330 (1935)).
[/QUOTE]
Now we’ll show the actual text that you cut that from:
[QUOTE=Perry v. US]
Congress cannot use its power to regulate the value of money so as to invalidate the obligations which the Government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps there is something else in the case (although I missed it upon reading, if so), but I don’t see anything in there that challenges a plain reading of the 14th. I agree that it does say “Congress can’t do X”, but nothing that I found seems to stop the court from saying “Congress can’t do Y either.” The case was about a very specific hack that Congress was trying to use in not paying Perry what he thought he was owed, thus that particular trick was what was discussed. I found no text in the case that in any way constrained an understanding of the 14th as narrowly as you think it does.
Again, I don’t think it’s a clear and simple path, but I think a valid argument can be made.
I wish your wife the best of health.
Moron.
I don’t really understand this concept. Is there any way could show it in graph form?
Concise and effective response. I think there’s a little more to my argument though.
As I said, it’s hard to imagine the courts becoming entangled in this issue for practical reasons. But it’s in precisely these sorts of circumstances that a rhetorical appeal to the constitution is valid, both amongst the public and perhaps on the floor of one of the two chambers. Provided of course it’s acknowledged that law enforcement should only proceed on the basis of actual decisions by the judicial branch. Which I do.
I don’t know what the definition of a constitutional actor is. But I do know that there’s a constitutional mandate* for legislature to maintain the validity of the public debt above all question. Now that doesn’t imply any question – it implies reasonable question. And I think it’s fair to say that the 2-3 professional credit agencies basically embody reasonable and professional questioning. If S&P embraces crank economics – well then that issue could be argued. If you find their justification questionable – well then argue that. But the downgrade by S&P is pretty strong (though not unassailable) evidence that the policies of the legislature have caused the validity of US debt to be questioned.
I’m going to interpret this last bit as a joke. If it’s not, it’s a ridiculous stretch. Let me quote Art I, Sec 6:
The Senators and Representatives… shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. “Questioned” in this context clearly means, “Questioned by the local constabulary”. There’s really no parallel to the language in the 14th amendment.
All that said, the more relevant argument was in post #155 (with the thoughts of a former actor in this mess) and not post #154, which as I said touched upon a valid and reasonable rhetorical argument.
The House has a constitutional mandate to maintain the full faith and credit of US debt. Where constitutional mandates that cannot be practically enforced by the courts, the responsibilities fall to the people. It’s a great burden, but with a heavy heart I must reluctantly call for John Boehner’s immediate resignation. I also extend to his Tea Partying supporters a simple request: obey the law.
- Bolded for the sake of fact and table pounding, which is pretty much all rhetoricians can do. Can’t really pound the law.
Wasn’t S&P at least to some degree complicit in the conditions that led to the financial meltdowns? They did, after all, give unjustifiably rosy ratings to instruments that proved to be, well, let’s just call them less than gilt-edged.
I’m not prepared to simply grant the professional credit rating agencies the standing as the arbiters of what constitutes “reasonable and professional questioning” viv-a-vis the soundness of US debt. I may (or may not) base my personal decision on whether to buy US debt on what they tell me. But I will not accept that a downgrade of the credit rating in any way changes the obligation of the United States to honor the debts they have sold to me.
AIUI, the Amendment forbids the government from defaulting on its debt. It does not forbid anyone from expressing doubt on the question of whether the debt will be paid. And it does not burden the government with preventing people from doing so.
IANAEconomistConstitutionalScholarLawyer. I AM, however, a Doper, and will gladly accept corrective instruction on any of the points I have made above.
Yeah, if a thousand of them is all you got.
Thank you for your response. Of course, when I asked you for example I had a strong feeling that your “they are the enemy” attitude has been around for a long time. A few minutes of Googling (seems to have) born that out.
Here is a quote apparently from Tip O’Neill about Ronald Reagan:
And a democratic Congressman apparently stated that Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf”
At least according to this article
Ok, then perhaps you are not a partisan hack.
Of course they are. Your objection is to using the debt ceiling as a political bargaining chip, right?
How exactly have things changed?
That’s a very common outcome in negotiations – each side getting about half of what they want.
Just like the democrats didn’t want to “kill the hostage.” That’s how the game of chicken works.
Again: what’s the BBQ for his friend and the handouts? Your analogy still doesn’t make a whit of sense. Please, be specific.
I’ll be perfectly honest – I hate the republican party. I despise what most republicans nowadays stand for. I abhor their extremist anti-science bend. I hate how they turn the rights of minorities into wedge issues. I hate the way they subscribe damn near religious importance to economic policies which fail miserably. I think this country would be considerably better off if we kicked Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama (and maybe Texas) out of the Union. The republican party stands in opposition to me on almost every issue, and in many cases, I’m indisputably on the right side (creationism/ID or Birtherism, for example). I spend a lot of time watching people I care about suffer because of things the republican party supports. But I’m not above criticizing my own team. I’m not about to say “well, this is only wrong if this party does it”. That would be fucking stupid. I hate the republicans because their policies are destructive and selfish – were they to change their tune and actually start following reasonable policy, then I’d cut the hate.
There are several variables that can be changed around the main issue, but I suppose you are correct.
…The Democrats haven’t been doing that?
If I say “I want a helicopter and $10,000,000 or I will kill your wife” and I decide after getting the chopper that the $10,000,000 in cash isn’t something you can reasonably produce fast enough, me leaving with the chopper isn’t “each side getting about half of what they want”. That’s “I got as much as I reasonably could from the other side”.
I’m sick to death of hearing people refer to the debt ceiling debates as “negotiations”, when they are in fact nothing of the sort.
…The democrats didn’t have a hostage.
You are confident the Democrats haven’t used the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in the last 10 years?
I agree, but I don’t think your analogy is apt.
How is it that they are not?
Of course they did – the same hostage as the republicans.
Here you are. Though there is some argument that it’s an interval scale and Fox News is worth -10000 words.
Fairly certain. Feel free to correct me. Either way, though, why does it matter?
The minority party is essentially saying “Do what we want or we will destroy this country’s credit rating”. That’s not a negotiation, that’s a hostage situation.
Of course they did – the same hostage as the republicans.
[/QUOTE]
The democrats were saying “We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling unless we get X, Y, and Z”? News to me.
Great paragraph.
My ideals and priorities tend to align with the Democratic platform. Basics things like spending on social safety nets. I’m not, though, overly enthusiastic about them as a party. They are not my “team.”
I am not averse to many aspects of the Republican platform. While I think social spending and investments in education are important, I do not believe in rampant, unchecked spending.
The Republican party, however, inspires a deep-seated reaction of utter repugnance. I had actually been a registered Republican up through the mid-Gingrich years. I do not know whether it was his changing of the conversation, the rise of talk radio’s insipid influence, or just a broader awareness.
Whatever it was, the end result is the same: nothing but disdain for their denial of basic science, their logic defying rhetoric, and their unholy unified adherence to party over country. The tactics they use and the values they hold are antithetical to the flag they so often wrap themselves up in.
That holding the Republican party in such contempt for clearly and easily articulable reasons is considered partisanship–such that such criticisms are ignored–demonstrates a pitiful dearth of critical reasoning skills.
BPC said all this much better.
Aha! So the Jews faked the moon landing and then pinned Elvis’s murder on Apollo Creed. It all makes sense now…
Apparently, you don’t.
The debt limit does nothing to limit spending.