"Experts" say debt ceiling is unconstitutional

[CoreyBowen999]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-obama-ignore-congress-refuse-raise-debt-ceiling-142136726.html

Your thoughts?

[Dustancostine]

Things like this make my head want to explode. Not borrowing and/or not paying the debt on time, is different than disputing the debt. Plus where does it say the US should borrow to keep paying?

[CoreyBowen999]

I feel that they use the constitution only when it suits them and even when it "suits them", they still interpret it wrong

[erowe1]

That provision in the 14th Amendment is invalid anyway, since it contradicts natural law. Politicians have no right to make promises of future payment on my and my childrens' behalf. And they can't attain that right just by putting it in the Constitution.

[CoreyBowen999]

And I think it would mean that instead of saying the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, it would mean that they HAVE to cut spending so they CAN pay their bills

[Chester Copperpot]

Hey wait, then all of our debt limits are unconstitutional then personally huh???


lets all not pay our mortgages and car payments and insist its OUR RIGHT

[Chester Copperpot]

Except for a dozen or so guys.. we need to arrest eveybody in congress..


Just lock em all up because what theyre doing is criminal.

[Chester Copperpot]

this entire argument is such a non sequitir.

amazing..

what an attempt at a clusterfuck

[LibertyEagle]

And I think it would mean that instead of saying the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, it would mean that they HAVE to cut spending so they CAN pay their bills

Don't hold your breath. In their eyes it probably would mean that they need to steal our IRAs to fund their spending.

[angelatc]

That provision in the 14th Amendment is invalid anyway, since it contradicts natural law. Politicians have no right to make promises of future payment on my and my childrens' behalf. And they can't attain that right just by putting it in the Constitution.

<rolls eyes>

[ItsTime]

No it is constitutional, it falls under the general welfare clause ;)

[James Madison]

I think having a private central bank is unconstitutional.

[CoreyBowen999]

No it is constitutional, it falls under the general welfare clause ;)

hahhahahaha

[sratiug]

No it is constitutional, it falls under the general welfare clause ;)

You are so wrong, it falls under the commerce clause.

[juleswin]

Good for us, now where does it say it is unconstitutional to keep actually pay off our debts by cutting spending? Anyway, I think I trust Jonathan Yurley over they yahoos on yahoo.com


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jopY13psYOY

[sailingaway]

Madison, agreeing with the journal of the convention, records that the grant of power to emit bills of credit was refused by a majority of more than four to one. Eleven men took part in the discussion; and every one of the eleven, whether he spoke for or against the grant of the power, Gouverneur Morris, Pierce Buffer, James Madison, Nathaniel Gorham, George Mason, John F. Mercer, Oliver Ellsworth, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, George Reed, and John Langdon, each and all, understood the vote to be a denial to the legislature of the United States of the power to emit paper money. Take the men, one by one, and see how weighty is the witness of each individual; take them together and add the consideration that they, every one of them, unanimously support each other and are contradicted by no one, and who shall dare question their testimony? The evidence is perfect; no power to emit paper money was granted to the legislature of the United States.

By refusing to the United States the power of issuing bills of credit, the victory over paper money was but half complete. The same James Wilson, who twelve days before with Oliver Ellsworth had taken a chief part in refusing to the United States the power to emit paper money, and the same Roger Sherman, who in 1752 had put forth all his energy to break up paper money in Connecticut, jointly took the lead. The first draft of the constitution had forbidden the states to emit bills of credit without the consent of the legislature of the United States; on the 28th of August they jointly offered this notion:

"No state shall coin money, nor emit bills of credit, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts," making the prohibition absolute. Roger Sherman, animated by zeal for the welfare of the coming republic of countless millions, exclaims in the debate: "This is the favorable crisis for crushing paper money." His word was the will of the convention, and the states, by a majority of eight and a half against one and a half-that is, by more than five to one--forbade the states, under any circumstances, to emit bills of credit. This is the way in which our constitution "shut and barred the door against paper money" and "crushed" it.

Nothing is wanting to the perfect strength of the truth, that the constitution put an end to paper money in all the United States and in all the several states; and yet a lawyer, who, but for his own refusal, would twelve years ago have become chief justice of the United States, in the line of succession from Ellsworth, further "finds in the legislative history of the country affirmative authority of the highest kind": "No suggestion of the existence of a power to make paper a legal tender," such are his words, "can be found in the legislative history of the country. Had such a power lurked in the constitution, as construed by those who ordained and administered it, we should find it so recorded. The occasion for referring to it has repeatedly arisen; and had such a power existed, it would have been recognised and acted on. It is hardly too much to say, therefore, that the uniform and universal judgment of statesmen, jurists, and lawyers has denied the constitutional right of congress to make paper a legal tender for debts to any extent whatever."



http://lexrex.com/enlightened/bancroft/part_three.htm

[Danke]

http://www.safehaven.com/article/21442/the-us-monetary-system-and-descent-into-fascism-an-interview-with-dr-edwin-vieira

"...Getting started, from a big-picture perspective, technically speaking, is the current U.S. monetary system actually constitutional?

EDWIN {Vieira}: Well, technically speaking, factually speaking, legally speaking, no. In a word, no."