President in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution?

[dphantom]

This is about the Civil War and what the federal govt. was obliged to pay. It says the money the Feds borrow must be paid back to debtors, however they owe nothing to the former Confederacy or the former slave holders for their financial losses due to the freeing of those slaves.

It means the Govt. recognizes it's debts, but defines what those debts are not

One can "question the debt" all they like, however for someone to ACT in a way that would invalidate (make moot) the debts owed by the Govt. is illegal

Bush cannot be guilty of something he did not do.

I really don't like Bush, but I can't endorse twisting truth to attack anyone.[/quote]

I think you've nailed it. It's people like Conjur who give liberals a bad rap when in fact teh Liberal postion can be very strong on some things. I am a conservative republican but like the old liberal tradition too in some ways. Todays modern liberal highlighted by moveon.org and other similar types simply repel so many people today with their outrageous statements, this thread being a prime examle.

Sen Lieberman, for example, is one of my favorite Democrats and I listen closely to what he says. Liberals were at the forefront in the early days of the Cold War attempting to hold off the spread of Communism thru the developing world. Not always successful and sometimes supporting a dictatorship, nevertheless, on the whole the old-style liberal tradition had teh interests of the US first and recognized that our interests do extend to other nations and that at times we have to act.

Sorry about this, getting off topic, but I've seen too many of these types of threads from people like the OP that are simply distortions of waht happened or was said.

Off my soapbox now.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: dphantom

I think you've nailed it. It's people like Conjur who give liberals a bad rap when in fact teh Liberal postion can be very strong on some things. I am a conservative republican but like the old liberal tradition too in some ways. Todays modern liberal highlighted by moveon.org and other similar types simply repel so many people today with their outrageous statements, this thread being a prime examle.

Sen Lieberman, for example, is one of my favorite Democrats and I listen closely to what he says. Liberals were at the forefront in the early days of the Cold War attempting to hold off the spread of Communism thru the developing world. Not always successful and sometimes supporting a dictatorship, nevertheless, on the whole the old-style liberal tradition had teh interests of the US first and recognized that our interests do extend to other nations and that at times we have to act.

Sorry about this, getting off topic, but I've seen too many of these types of threads from people like the OP that are simply distortions of waht happened or was said.

Off my soapbox now.

There are so many crazies on both sides making so much noise, its good to hear an acknowledgement that both sides have merit. I agree with you completely on this.

 

[Mursilis]

First, thanks to tss4 and Jhhnn for the kind words about my posts.

Second, wow, it appears we have (dare I say it?) consensus about the proper interpretation of the 14th - impressive. I'm glad some people are putting truth above partisanship. Let's hope that's not contagious!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
His statements, like those of Greenspan or Snow (and O'Neill before him), can have dramatic affects on stocks/bonds/currency markets. Saying US Treasury bonds may not be worth anything isn't putting a lot of confidence into foreign countries upon whom our national debt relies.

So what? He has First Amendment rights, too. And as long as he's not taking any action to legally undermine existing public debt, no court in the land is going to find any 14th Amendment violation. This is such a non-issue.

First Amendment rights that fly in the face of that section of the 14th Amendment? It doesn't matter if that section was added re:the Civil War debt. If it was solely meant to cover that it should have been written with an expiration date. Ever stop to think it was added to cover all future debt, too? When does the First Amendment protect damaging the U.S. economy with flippant statements?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: conjur
His statements, like those of Greenspan or Snow (and O'Neill before him), can have dramatic affects on stocks/bonds/currency markets. Saying US Treasury bonds may not be worth anything isn't putting a lot of confidence into foreign countries upon whom our national debt relies.

So what? He has First Amendment rights, too. And as long as he's not taking any action to legally undermine existing public debt, no court in the land is going to find any 14th Amendment violation. This is such a non-issue.

First Amendment rights that fly in the face of that section of the 14th Amendment? It doesn't matter if that section was added re:the Civil War debt. If it was solely meant to cover that it should have been written with an expiration date. Ever stop to think it was added to cover all future debt, too? When does the First Amendment protect damaging the U.S. economy with flippant statements?

ARGH!!! Why must you be so pointlessly belligerent?!?!
This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. Everyone else seems to get it, so why can't you?
The phrase "question the validity of public debt" as found in the 14th Amendment does NOT refer to Bush or anyone else (rhetorically) questioning the government's ability to meet future obligations; that happens literally every day, as tons of commentators continue to suggest Congress is digging a fiscal hole too deep to fill, and no one's ever been prosecuted because of it. I defy you to find me a court case to that effect.

Instead, the phrase means Congress (or any other federal official) may not undertake any legal action which undermines/changes/unilaterally modifies the government's obligations to meet existing public debt on the terms in effect at the time of issue. Any number of FEDERAL COURT CASES (including Supreme Court cases, if you'd bothered to research this) take this interpretation, and I've already mentioned a few.

As for your remark whether I've "stopped to think", yes I have. Have you? :disgust:

 

[conjur]

I just wanted to hear a convincing argument. Thank you. I think that answers it.

 

[imported_tss4]

It looks like that same arguement only had to be repeated 9 times on this thread before you acknowledged it.