• 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, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse

Slavery. The ability to regulate slavery was not given to the Federal Government in the Constitution.

Are you saying that they could not regulate importation of slaves after 1808?

You can't see the difference in pre-Civil War and after? Before the Civil War, it was thought that States had the right to nullify Federal law and secede from the Union. The Civil War settled those arguments as well (in the negative). That's what I'd call a fundamental switch.

Sorry, but this doesn't address the issue. You keep moving the target. We were discussing Madison and Hamilton. We were last discussing the bank and how it came after constitutional intent was defined. Now we are going to leap to the Civil War and the legislation that followed. I still don't see anything that changed the Constitution with regards to authority of the Federal Government; except, that it would have the added powers to ensure that the States provided certain rights to others. I am still looking for something that gives the Federal Government unlimited authority to do x, y, and z. You have not shown me that nor has anyone else here done that. They have just made the claim that the government can do it and can do it without amendment.

Maybe there are two constitutons. One for liberals and one for conservatives. If so, I still have yet to see the liberal one.
 
Daley: GOP wants "their way or highway" on debt - CBS News

Face the Nation: White House Chief of Staff William Daley

In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Daley contended that President Obama and leaders in Congress had been "extremely close" to a deal on Friday night, but that House Speaker John Boehner had abandoned negotiations rather than urge his party to agree to the bipartisan plan.

"The truth is, we were probably 85 percent there," Daley told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "There were different options on different items. Much of it related to what would be the best strategy to get the needed votes to pass this, because it was going to be very hard for Democrats with the amount of entitlement cuts...And at the same time, the Speaker was going to have to go to caucus and say, 'There is a need for revenue to solve our problem.' And that's where the breakdown happened."

"Speaker Boehner...walked away twice from a deal with the president which would have finally begun a serious attempt to cut spending," Daley added.

Further: What gives him the right to not even give his caucus a say??
 
Are you saying that they could not regulate importation of slaves after 1808?

No, I'm saying that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress or the President given any authority to legislate against slavery. Not in the states, and according to the Dred Scott decision, not in Federal Territories either.



Sorry, but this doesn't address the issue.

Au contraire, we were talking about the relative power of states vs. Feds. That power structure profoundly changed in the wake of the Civil War, never to go back again. You can talk about Madison all you like, but his country hasn't existed since at least 1860. To go back to the original framers would be to ignore the past 150 years of American history.

Maybe there are two constitutons. One for liberals and one for conservatives. If so, I still have yet to see the liberal one.

Strangely, I haven't seen either of these. I have seen plenty of well-intentioned people disagree over what exactly it says.
 
No, I'm saying that nowhere in the Constitution is Congress or the President given any authority to legislate against slavery. Not in the states, and according to the Dred Scott decision, not in Federal Territories either.

You just agreed that the Constitution allowed Congress to ban importation of slaves as of 1806. However, even if it mentioned absolutely nothing, the Constitution was amended to end slavery. Where is the amendment that allows Congress unlimited authority?

Au contraire, we were talking about the relative power of states vs. Feds. That power structure profoundly changed in the wake of the Civil War, never to go back again. You can talk about Madison all you like, but his country hasn't existed since at least 1860. To go back to the original framers would be to ignore the past 150 years of American history.

What amendment changed the power structure profoundly? Which amendment negated Article I, section 8? I am not ignoring any of the history.

Strangely, I haven't seen either of these. I have seen plenty of well-intentioned people disagree over what exactly it says.

Are you sure there are not two? Well, if not, then which of these amendments provided Congress with unlimited authority?


Article. XIII.
[Proposed 1865; Ratified 1865]
Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Article. XV.
[Proposed 1869; Ratified 1870]
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Please be specific and point out which words actually provided Congress with unlimited authority.
 
Do you really think the Boehner is that useful? At least common manure does have a functional gardening usage.

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

You have now joined another member here as you are quite a stitch too.

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!
 
What amendment changed the power structure profoundly? Which amendment negated Article I, section 8? I am not ignoring any of the history.

No amendments. It still changed. Saying the Civil War didn't change anything is, frankly, the sort of absolutely ignorant thing that I expect Michele Bachmann to say. If you think the change in how power happened in this country is wrong, you have the right to think so. Get in your time machine and go tell Abraham Lincoln. It did change. Power effectively moved up the ladder.

Should we reverse everything that isn't in the Constitution? I think Sarah Palin's fans wouldn't be very happy because you just negated the purchase of Alaska (and the entire Louisiana Purchase). You can't go back, that shark's been jumped.
 
No amendments. It still changed. Saying the Civil War didn't change anything is, frankly, the sort of absolutely ignorant thing that I expect Michele Bachmann to say. If you think the change in how power happened in this country is wrong, you have the right to think so. Get in your time machine and go tell Abraham Lincoln. It did change. Power effectively moved up the ladder.

Should we reverse everything that isn't in the Constitution? I think Sarah Palin's fans wouldn't be very happy because you just negated the purchase of Alaska (and the entire Louisiana Purchase). You can't go back, that shark's been jumped.

OMG!!!

Article V, Constitution of the United States of America
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I take it that this part of the Constitution was made null and void during Reconstruction or shortly thereafter. Is that correct? Can you provide any documentation that this part of the Constitution was made null and void?

If amending was no longer necessary to change the Constitution and that the Federal Government was all powerful, why do we have Amendments beginning with the Sixteenth on? Why is that and do you have any documentation to support your views on this.

I have read many books on the Constitution and my current reading regards the Fourteenth Amendment. I have read the Journal of the 39th Congress which is the Congress who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment and I cannot find where they mentioned anything about your thesis.

Since this is so clear to you, it must be obvious that there is a great deal of evidence to support your theory. I look forward to reviewing.
 
How rude to have left Obama on his hands and knees.

I'd agree with you if the rest of us weren't, figuratively speaking, tied up and bent over waiting for the deadline for everybody else's turn.
 
I am honestly not even paying attention to this mess... I think they'll sort something out, because if they don't raise the ceiling the results will be disastrous and nobody wants to risk getting blamed.

I'm with you! Those with big money stand to lose the most if we default, or even get our credit rating lowered. They will not allow their lackeys to do that.

The debt limit will be raised, so don't sweat it peoples! :sun
 
OK, tax credits. But my point still stands that the spending under Obama has a lot of spending due to legislation passed by republicans under bush*

no it doesn't. the Stimulus wasn't passed under Bush. the 24% increase in domestic spending under Obama wasn't passed under Bush. the trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see that are part of Obama's budget proposal were never part of Bush.

look, i'm not going to sit here and argue that Bush was anything but a big spender, or any kind of a fiscal hawk. but Obama's spending hikes are his own.

Now, you're just posting fiction. There is no "porkulus bill" and UI benefits have not been extended endlessly

eh, hyperbole. the Stimulus Bill spending turned out to be mostly aid to politically important democratic states and localities - that's what you call "pork spending". and UI benefits have indeed been extended again, and again, and again. 99 weeks on top of the States coverage. You can live for two years for free on others' dime.

And even if they were, that doesn't undue all the wasteful spending passed by republicans and signed by bush*

agreed. you should see the (lengthy, angry) letters I sent back to the RNC when they dared to ask me for contributions in 2008.

Both bush* and Obama (and both parties) are responsible for Education Deform. That still doesn't undue all the wasteful spending passed by republicans and signed by bush*

which remains less than that which was passed and signed by Obama. Spending grew under Bush and accelerated under Obama. If one man walks up and shoots you in the knee, and another walks up and shoots you in the face - you can't exactly blame your death on the first man.
 
We *HAD* a surplus.....that is until bush* and the republicans went on their spending spree

Excuse me, but that debunked years ago. It was a projected surplus, and not real.
 
I'm with you! Those with big money stand to lose the most if we default, or even get our credit rating lowered. They will not allow their lackeys to do that.

The debt limit will be raised, so don't sweat it peoples! :sun

Looks like their "lackey" Boehner is failing them, doesn't it?
 
It is about time Boehner grew a pair and did what the country needed, not what the politicians need. Good for him.

nobody with skin that color has a pair, unless they've been surgically attached. he's a complete waste of space.
 
nobody with skin that color has a pair, unless they've been surgically attached. he's a complete waste of space.

Of course, cause he won't push your socialist agenda. Boohoo
 
Last edited:
no it doesn't. the Stimulus wasn't passed under Bush.

The stimulus was not 4.5T which the rightiies keep repeating. And a good deal of it was tax credits, not spending. Trying to blame the entire increase in spending on the stimulus and the extension of UI is ludicrous

the 24% increase in domestic spending under Obama wasn't passed under Bush. the trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see that are part of Obama's budget proposal were never part of Bush.

Most of it was passed under bush* or was required by legislation passed under bush*. For example, Obama has to service all the debt accumulated under reagan, ghwb and bush*. It's the law.

look, i'm not going to sit here and argue that Bush was anything but a big spender, or any kind of a fiscal hawk. but Obama's spending hikes are his own.

And you'll never explain why Obamas' having to service debt created under reagan, ghwb and bush* is Obamas fault, because you can't

eh, hyperbole. the Stimulus Bill spending turned out to be mostly aid to politically important democratic states and localities - that's what you call "pork spending". and UI benefits have indeed been extended again, and again, and again. 99 weeks on top of the States coverage. You can live for two years for free on others' dime.

The stimulus bill is Obamas responsibility, but that does not account for the entire increase in spending. It was just one small piece of the increase. And plenty of repubicans voted to extend UI benefits. They share in that too.


agreed. you should see the (lengthy, angry) letters I sent back to the RNC when they dared to ask me for contributions in 2008
.

Good for you. I have never said that the entire increase in spending is all on bush*. However, the facts clearly show that they are also not entirely on Obama either. In some cases, both parties are to blame. In others Obama. And in others, bush*

which remains less than that which was passed and signed by Obama. Spending grew under Bush and accelerated under Obama. If one man walks up and shoots you in the knee, and another walks up and shoots you in the face - you can't exactly blame your death on the first man.

Again, the fact that Obama has increased funding for that doesn't mean that bush* is absolved of responsibility for the spending on education that passed under bush*
 
Last edited:
This is all about nObama's election and NOT About the American people and that's why nObama won't compromise and is throwing fits, after all he created all the mess we are in.

This is all about everyone's reelection after the past 30 years of out of control deficit spending. Pay attention.
 
OMG!!!

Article V, Constitution of the United States of America
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I take it that this part of the Constitution was made null and void during Reconstruction or shortly thereafter. Is that correct? Can you provide any documentation that this part of the Constitution was made null and void?

If amending was no longer necessary to change the Constitution and that the Federal Government was all powerful, why do we have Amendments beginning with the Sixteenth on? Why is that and do you have any documentation to support your views on this.

I have read many books on the Constitution and my current reading regards the Fourteenth Amendment. I have read the Journal of the 39th Congress which is the Congress who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment and I cannot find where they mentioned anything about your thesis.

Since this is so clear to you, it must be obvious that there is a great deal of evidence to support your theory. I look forward to reviewing.

So your position is, nothing changed after the Civil War. Interesting interpretation of history. The way that power was supposed to be promulgated didn't change. I know that parts of the Constitution didn't change. There were amendments, and we agree that none of them changed the power structure as written in the Constitution. Yet, this changed.

What part of the Constitution gave Lincoln the right to go to war against seceding states? What part gave him the right to free slaves by executive decree? Did this stop him? I think he was right, but the narrow view of the Constitution that says he did not have this power is exactly what paralyzed James Buchanan, who is probably the worst President in history.

Do you need documentation that the Civil War actually occurred, or can we take that as given? Do you need documentation that the country changed afterwards? Because it's pretty obvious to most people with an 11th grade education that it did.

I know that parts of the Constitution, as written, did not change. I'm not arguing that they did. I'm arguing that the nature of the Union changed regardless.
 
Last edited:
So your position is, nothing changed after the Civil War. Interesting interpretation of history. The way that power was supposed to be promulgated didn't change. I know that parts of the Constitution didn't change. There were amendments, and we agree that none of them changed the power structure as written in the Constitution. Yet, this changed.

What part of the Constitution gave Lincoln the right to go to war against seceding states? What part gave him the right to free slaves by executive decree? Did this stop him? I think he was right, but the narrow view of the Constitution that says he did not have this power is exactly what paralyzed James Buchanan, who is probably the worst President in history.

Do you need documentation that the Civil War actually occurred, or can we take that as given? Do you need documentation that the country changed afterwards? Because it's pretty obvious to most people with an 11th grade education that it did.

I know that parts of the Constitution, as written, did not change. I'm not arguing that they did. I'm arguing that the nature of the Union changed regardless.

You agree that there is an Article V of the Constitution and you further agree that Article V was never changed nor repealed nor was any amendment added that changed Article I, section 8. Amazing! I guess I only had a 10th grade edukashun. Snarky. LOL! Just snarky!
 
Whenever you think of Obama, think 'Cloward-Piven'. That's the name of the strategy by which Obama has sabotaged our economy. Everything he says and does goes to the full employment of that strategy. Obama seeks the destruction of the American economy by overloading it with debt.
 
Last edited:
This is all about nObama's election and NOT About the American people and that's why nObama won't compromise and is throwing fits, after all he created all the mess we are in.

Hope you continue to be a partisan hack and ignore the facts that both parties are playing politics.

Whenever you think of Obama, think 'Cloward-Piven'. That's the name of the strategy by which Obama has sabotaged our economy. Everything he says and does goes to the full employment of that strategy. Obama seeks the destruction of the American economy by overloading it with debt.


Funny, seeing as how President Bush went and created the current deficit (The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral) (The Progress Report: The Bush Deficit)

As well as the Republicans created the current debt. ($12 Trillion Republican National Debt)
 
Back
Top Bottom