GOP tells the Constitution to fuck off

You know that whole "debt ceiling" thing, and how it could fuck up our ability to pay some debts? Yeah, there's something about that everybody should read ...

Amendment 14, Section 4. Nonpayment of debts is unconstitutional.

That would be true if the government shut down would cause "insurrection or rebellion" which it is not. Reaching the debt ceiling and having the United States not incur any new debt will not incite rebellion or insurrection. The Treasury will still be able to pay debt payments and repackage the debt. So close but no cigar.

Someone got the lawyer signal?

Which party is it that has yet to produce a budget?
http://nation.foxnews.com/charles-krauthammer/2011/07/05/where-democrat-budget-krauthammer-reduces-pbs-pundit-stammering-mess

I'm all for bombing the shit out of Lybia, but its unconstitutional. Had Bush done the same, MSNBC would need adult diapers for all the pundits shitting themselves over it. Play golf, vacation, campaign etc. That has been the hallmark of this administration.

IMHO, throw every fucking one of them out and elect real people that will get salaries that cover they're family's. In other words, they get military pay.

I don't think you read that right.

The Treasury will continue to print worthless bills. Gov't (and ex) officials will lose paychecks (boo hoo). Cry me a river.

See: Germany 1919-1933

Where were you educated? The only thing to come of that era was trench warfare, mustard gas and Hitler (and the invention of the tank). The eventual gold from Germany and Austria was most likely pillaged from the Jewish citizens and other war crimes of WWII. Then again you are chiming in from a country that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for our help.

He was educated in Canada, where they have a slightly different (and a tad more accurate) teaching of the war in schools. You really need to work on your trolling.

Enough said. I'll sleep well tonight.

Oh Canada!

Related to the costs of the civil war and that the South would by paying their share back to the Union.

The application of this section to any other financial matter is absurd and a twisting worthy of rubber man.

Where the fuck did you go to school you world ignorant troll?

I have NO idea what you mean from that last part. We kept a standing army until WW1 specifically in case we were attacked by the US (again, I might add). There was literally no help from you in becoming a country. We became recognized internationally due to our accomplishments in WW1 starting in 1914. And our ties with the US didn't become as close as they are until after WW2, so where you get this "Canada wouldn't exist without the US" BS is beyond me.

Second your knowledge of history is really poor. If it wasn't, you would have realized that I said "See: Germany 1919-1933" because they had to pay their war reparations, which caused them to print money to the point where it was worthless and their economy collapsed. Hitler's rise to power was from a direct result of said economic collapse.

And WW1 was from 1914-1918; 1917-1918 for the US in case you were unsure.

Nice anti-Semitic comment at the end though btw

If what you claim is true than the whole concept of a debt limit is unconstitutional in its entire conception. I don't see the Supreme Court raising the debt ceiling from the bench especially since they did not do this in the 90s.

Precisely which portion of the Constitution are you relying on for this statement? Please be specific.

You could be relying on the War Powers Act to justify this statement, but gosh I'd really love to hear a "conservative"/originalist/textual justification for the validity of that piece of legislation.

More relevantly, the "Constitutional Option" for obviating the debt ceiling limit is a pretty fascinating issue of law. I don't think anyone can say with any confidence that they know how that will turn out.

He went to school in a country that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for French help.

Since we're in a bit of a Canada vs the US thing...
I thought this was appropriate:



I have no idea what he meant by

Unless that statement was designed to intentionally display complete ignorance...

^^^LOL omg that made me laugh

I love the arrogant worms.

I think it's more of a informed vs ignorant thing

The awesome part was that your first point actually supported his and he started screeching at you for it.

I have to disagree with you on this. If that were the case, the Amendment would only be the second part, i.e.

And it is entirely possibly that a simple law, instead of a constitutional amendment would have been sufficient for the purposes of a one-time event.

But that first sentence:

This is the part that expands the Amendment beyond just the Civil War. This is the part that, at least to my eyes, makes this Amendment-worthy. It is a protection for lenders from the U.S. Government arbitrarily deciding they aren't going to pay debts, pensions, bounties, etc.

This is also the section that can cause trouble for anyone who wants to try to remove or privatize Social Security. SS could be argued as a type of pension, paid into by anyone who gets a paycheck.

Now, someone also said that this theory might render the whole idea of the debt ceiling Unconstitutional. That would depend on what the purpose of the debt ceiling is. Remember, the debt ceiling is a self-imposed arbitrary number. It has been raised nearly as many times (if not more) than the number of years it's been around. The argument of purpose is:

It is meant to limit the amount of money the Government borrows, which would then render the Government unable to pay loans
or
It is meant to make the Government pause and take a look at its spending/revenue/etc and perhaps reassess priorities.