• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Bypassing Congress on Debt Limit is 'Crazy Talk'

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama Bypassing Congress on Debt Limit is 'Crazy Talk'



Sen. John Cornyn warned President Obama on Sunday to not even consider interpreting the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment to bypass Congress and raise the debt limit without its approval.
"That's crazy talk. It's not acceptable for Congress and the president not to do their job and to say somehow the president has the authority then to basically do this by himself," Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge on the Texas Supreme Court, told "Fox News Sunday."

I can’t believe people are even considering this as an option. Things are getting really scary around here. Maybe Glenn Beck was right about the left.
 
Crazy talk?? Yes, it is. BUT-- we had cap and trade go to the EPA, the Dream Act, basically, go to ICE and HLS.......... nothing he does would surprise me. Nothing.
 
Glenn Beck IS right. I do what he says-- never believe him, do my own homework. He does not lie.
 
Glenn Beck IS right. I do what he says-- never believe him, do my own homework. He does not lie.

Beck lies, he also manipulates the truth. I would take the things he says very lightly.
 
Beck lies, he also manipulates the truth. I would take the things he says very lightly.

LOL!! I would, too, if I didn't have news links backing up most of what he says. He is OFTEN right.
:peace
 
Beck lies, he also manipulates the truth. I would take the things he says very lightly.

With Democrat Senators, the Treasury Secretary and the White House mulling over yet another unprecedented executive branch end run around the legislative branch and contortion of the law, I have to believe Glenn Beck does less manipulation of the truth than Obama and his cronies do.

This shouldn’t even be a partisan issue. This is an absolute affront to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
 
“The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” — The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What's ‘crazy talk’ is Republicans suggesting that the U.S. defaulting on its obligations isn't a ‘big deal.’

If President Obama does his duty, ignores the unconstitutional debt ceiling and continues to meet our past obligations per the Constitutional requirement, the Republican-controlled U.S. House will most assuredly impeach him. But, of course, they were looking for an excuse for that all along.
 
Last edited:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” — The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What's ‘crazy talk’ is Republicans suggesting that the U.S. defaulting on its obligations isn't a ‘big deal.’

If President Obama does his duty, ignores the unconstitutional debt ceiling and continues to meet our past obligations per the Constitutional requirement, the Republican-controlled U.S. House will most assuredly impeach him. But, of course, they were looking for an excuse for that all along.

Try reading Article 1, sections 8 and 9. You know, I almost hope he does try this little shenanigan because he will be impeached by Democrats as well as Republicans.
 
Congress authorized the spending that incurring the obligations. To say now that they won't meet those obligations is the real crime.
 
If Obama can do it, he should.

The republicans are playing games with the countries economic health for their own political purposes, it does not serve the nation.
 
Last edited:
LOL!! I would, too, if I didn't have news links backing up most of what he says. He is OFTEN right.
:peace

Beck is pretty clever. It's not so much that he lies, but rather that he presents such an absurd interpretation of factual events that he diverges significantly from reality.
 
It all depends on who you listen to about whether or not we will default. Many economists say we do not have to default on debt if the debt ceiling is not raised. Usually I hear people saying the Repubs are screaming "the sky is falling"... this time it is the Dems doing it.. There are several things people would like to impeach Obama for. I had this discussion elsewhere and reluctantly came to the conclusion that the focus should be on making sure he is not re-elected rather than trying to impeach him. That was before I read this, though. IF he does this I am jumping on the impeach him wagon.
 
Congress authorized the spending that incurring the obligations. To say now that they won't meet those obligations is the real crime.

Fortunately the law and crimes aren’t decided based upon what feels right.
 
If Obama can do it, he should.

The republicans are playing games with the countries economic health for their own political purposes, it does not serve the nation.

Looks like Obama is just as guilty of the accusations you level at Republicans. Would you be in favor of abolishing the entire Constitution while Obama and Geithner are at it or should we just act like it really is the law of the land until it the next time it becomes an inconvenience to the President’s agenda and political asperations?
 
Beck is pretty clever. It's not so much that he lies, but rather that he presents such an absurd interpretation of factual events that he diverges significantly from reality.

I think this is a pretty accurate assessment.
 
Congress authorized the spending that incurring the obligations. To say now that they won't meet those obligations is the real crime.

Obama authorized it when he signed the Bill
 
If Obama can do it, he should.

The republicans are playing games with the countries economic health for their own political purposes, it does not serve the nation.

So you want the constitution gone and a dictator Obama ?
 
How the F*** could ANYONE even consider using the 14th this way is just....staggering. Now I don't know if Obama has actually considered this or even mentioned that he is even slightly considering this (note that the article actually doesn't say that Obama is)...but if he is this is even more reason to get that s.o.b out of the POTUS chair.

I thought I was done being surprised at the crap people suggest when it comes to politics...but this....this has shocked me.
 
Let's see here:

1) Congress authorized a certain amount of spending.
2) Congress authorized a certain amount of taxes to be collected.
3) Congress prohibited the Treasury from borrowing money to make up the difference.

It doesn't take a PhD in Economics to see that statements 1, 2, and 3 are incompatible. Since Congress has passed contradictory laws, the executive branch will have to pick and choose which laws get enforced. It's hardly an ideal situation, but under the circumstances I can't say I blame Obama. There is no particular legal reason why #3 should take priority over #1, since Congress passed them BOTH with equal legitimacy and with equal force of the law.
 
Last edited:
Let's see here:

1) Congress authorized a certain amount of spending.
2) Congress authorized a certain amount of taxes to be collected.
3) Congress prohibited the Treasury from borrowing money to make up the difference.

It doesn't take a PhD in Economics to see that statements 1, 2, and 3 are incompatible. Since Congress has passed contradictory laws, the executive branch will have to pick and choose which laws get enforced. It's hardly an ideal situation, but under the circumstances I can't say I blame Obama. There is no particular legal reason why #3 should take priority over #1, since Congress signed them BOTH into law with equal legitimacy and with equal force of the law.

The president does not have the authority to pick and choose which laws to follow.
He is not a dictator that is above the law.
 
The president does not have the authority to pick and choose which laws to follow.
He is not a dictator that is above the law.

Congress passed CONTRADICTORY laws, so he has no CHOICE but to pick and choose which laws to follow. This isn't some philosophical legal principle, this is basic logic. If Congress passes a law mandating that the president wear a tie on Friday, and passes another law banning the president from wearing a tie on Friday, common sense says that he can't obey both laws...regardless of whether he fancies himself a dictator above the law.
 
Last edited:
Let's see here:

1) Congress authorized a certain amount of spending.
2) Congress authorized a certain amount of taxes to be collected.
3) Congress prohibited the Treasury from borrowing money to make up the difference.

It doesn't take a PhD in Economics to see that statements 1, 2, and 3 are incompatible. Since Congress has passed contradictory laws, the executive branch will have to pick and choose which laws get enforced. It's hardly an ideal situation, but under the circumstances I can't say I blame Obama. There is no particular legal reason why #3 should take priority over #1, since Congress signed them BOTH into law with equal legitimacy and with equal force of the law.

Boy am I confused ... I thought nothing actually became a law until it was signed by the President ..
 
Boy am I confused ... I thought nothing actually became a law until it was signed by the President ..

What's your point? Contradictory laws now exist on the books, so the president cannot enforce them all simultaneously. Whether or not they bear his signature has no relevance to this simple principle of logic.
 
Obama is going full rogue. If he continues to just do whatever he wants, I might vote for him. He should taunt congress more... "someone might not recall deploying troops if y'all don't chill out".
 
Congress passed CONTRADICTORY laws, so he has no CHOICE but to pick and choose which laws to follow. This isn't some philosophical legal principle, this is basic logic. If Congress passes a law mandating that the president wear a tie on Friday, and passes another law banning the president from wearing a tie on Friday, common sense says that he can't obey both laws...regardless of whether he fancies himself a dictator above the law.

No he doesn't.
His job is not arbitrator of which contradictory laws to enforce, his job is to enforce the law.

It is a philosophical legal principle.
He will violate the separation of powers by increasing the debt limit without congressional consent.

Also, he has the power to veto any bill that comes across his desk.

Also #2, this is precisely why there are supposed to be limited powers for the government.
Congress isn't supposed to pass laws for all sorts of things that they do, including what attire the president wears.

I see this as more of the "living constitution" crap eating itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom