General Discussion

gopiscrap

(24,554 posts)

76. I agree

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Oct 15, 2013, 04:38 PM

Oct 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This is a constitutional crisis. [View all] kentuck Oct 2013 OP

seems to me house members could demand a vote. stand up and demand it until they get it. robinlynne Oct 2013 #1

They tried it. kentuck Oct 2013 #2

If the House sends over a new version of the CR with the same H. Joint Res. number onenote Oct 2013 #12

A little complicated for the average person... kentuck Oct 2013 #14

No question about that. onenote Oct 2013 #26

I thought the Democrats should have challenged the rule a little more kentuck Oct 2013 #33

It was debated for an hour on September 30 onenote Oct 2013 #41

They could have threatened to shut down the House. kentuck Oct 2013 #43

If only they could have. onenote Oct 2013 #47

is this wrong then? questionseverything Oct 2013 #65

That's why the ReThugs like stupid constituents. Auntie Bush Oct 2013 #56

The question is why Harry Reid hasn't introduced new Senate rules all now malaise Oct 2013 #32

Sure there is, the constitution specifically indicates that... PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #3

But "rules of its Proceedings"... kentuck Oct 2013 #5

Political gridlock on major issues is not an invention of the 20th century Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #6

I don't think this will destroy the government. It isn't a real 'constitutional crisis' PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #9

Do you think this is no different from other "shutdowns"? kentuck Oct 2013 #10

'Different'? Sure. Destroy the governemnt different, no. n/t PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #13

actually, the "rules of its proceedings" don't assume anything about whether the body will proceed onenote Oct 2013 #28

But, is it legal to "filibuster" the budget of the United States for the sole purpose.... kentuck Oct 2013 #34

Nothing in the constitution precludes one side from seeking the complete capitulation of the other onenote Oct 2013 #42

So you believe that.... kentuck Oct 2013 #48

Show me the provision of the constitution that is being violated. onenote Oct 2013 #49

And the 14th Amendment, Section 4, is the provision that will be violated... kentuck Oct 2013 #51

I think the "... shall not be questioned" gambit is being over-played ...... oldhippie Oct 2013 #60

"no one is questioning the validity of the US debt'... kentuck Oct 2013 #63

Validity is not the same thing as collectibilty .... oldhippie Oct 2013 #66

Validity is only "valid" so long as it is trusted and unquestioned. kentuck Oct 2013 #68

I don't think that is the legal definition ..... oldhippie Oct 2013 #69

That still doesn't answer the question of what version of a debt ceiling increase becomes law onenote Oct 2013 #70

WWSD? kentuck Oct 2013 #71

We're jumping back and forth between the CR and the debt ceiling onenote Oct 2013 #72

The debt and the debt limit are two different things, the debt limit De Facto violates the 14th Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #15

Good point. kentuck Oct 2013 #18

Precisely and only two Constitutional Nations have a debt limit, the U.S. and Denmark Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #22

I don't think it necessarily does, as the Government can raise money without borrowing more PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #19

Just by threatening to not raise the debt limit, the Republicans have violated the 14th Amendment. Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #25

That would mean that by actually vetoing a debt ceiling increase, President Clinton violated the 14h onenote Oct 2013 #29

Clinton didn't veto the debt ceiling increase, he vetoed the spending bill, Newt Gingrich threatened Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #35

Which means that this Congress... kentuck Oct 2013 #39

Hard to believe but it's true. Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #45

Wrong. He vetoed both a debt ceiling increase and a CR. onenote Oct 2013 #46

Clinton vetoed a bill to limit debt, not increase it. Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #59

Which is why I would expect the courts to rule that the government must pay the debt. PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #30

But it could only sell off public lands, etc... kentuck Oct 2013 #36

The constitution does give congress the power over federal property... PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #79

Paying late is "calling in to question" not to mention the fact that late payments increase interest Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #44

I believe they will use the Fourteenth Amendment to establish a case to override Baitball Blogger Oct 2013 #4

Political Parties? Bobcat Oct 2013 #7

These people are Traitors Period ruffburr Oct 2013 #8

Perhaps not. Make7 Oct 2013 #11

It is a Constitutional Crises that has cracked the Constitution to its core.... Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #16

The President's job is to "execute" the laws. kentuck Oct 2013 #20

Only the Supreme Court can adjudicate conflicts in the Constitution. Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #24

I hear you. kentuck Oct 2013 #37

I absolutely agree that this should be taken to the Supreme Court. Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #40

The 14th amendment and "emergency powers" gives Obama all the cover he needs. Renew Deal Oct 2013 #54

The Obama administation has consistantly stated that would not be Constitutional. Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #73

PATRIOT Act + RICO Act have provisions for terrorism. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #17

Yup, and nadinbrzezinski Oct 2013 #21

Yup. Welcome to the party. I said it two weeks ago. IdaBriggs Oct 2013 #23

The Exectutive Branch shouldn't accept a "dirty" CR, but it sure as heck "can" onenote Oct 2013 #38

The early congresses had rules about when duelling was and wasn't allowed between members Recursion Oct 2013 #27

Crises of constitutional issues or existence, both, other? HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #31

Isn't that treason? kentuck Oct 2013 #50

Are you saying that it is treason to abolish departments of government onenote Oct 2013 #52

A small minority of one Party in one House... kentuck Oct 2013 #55

President Clinton vetoed a debt ceiling bill against the wishes of a majority of the two houses onenote Oct 2013 #62

It certainly seems to run against the 14th Amendment HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #75

Apparently, we dare NOT call it treason HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #74

How about a compromise, we'll repeal Obamacare if we can replace it with Medicare for All? ErikJ Oct 2013 #53

Agreed. nt ecstatic Oct 2013 #57

I don't think it's a constitutional crisis LittleBlue Oct 2013 #58

Until it isn't.. kentuck Oct 2013 #61

When this first came up, I read that amendment LittleBlue Oct 2013 #64

Excellent point! kentuck Oct 2013 #67

I agree gopiscrap Oct 2013 #76

The only remedy is next year's elections many a good man Oct 2013 #77

Nothing in the Constitution enforces democracy. GeorgeGist Oct 2013 #78