Welcome to Unalienable Rights Foundation!

     Featured
· Home
· AvantGo
· Content
· Downloads
· Members_List
· Stories_Archive
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web_Links

     What Are/Is

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

Unalienable
V
Inalienable Rights

Dillon Rule

Citizens Guide - Impeachment


     Random Headlines

General Counsel and Senior Law Fellows
[ General Counsel and Senior Law Fellows ]

·Richard Nixon Pardon / In Part
·State Court Docket Watch - Winter 2012-2013
·what makes the D.C. Circuit so different
·Health Care Litigation Update
·Separation of Powers CLE Course featuring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Sc
·Citizens United v. FEC - Federalist Society Debate

     UARF FELLOWS

What is a UARF Fellow 


     CNN LAW
·Court upholds limits on Navy sonar training
·Slain wife accuses husband from the grave
·Prosecutors drop parent-killing case
·Priest accused of lying in mob investigation
·Inmate shot dead after brazen escape
·Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict
·Man convicted for Internet hoax death
·Zoloft killer's 30-year sentence appealed
·Girl who shielded mom is a hero at school
·Holloway disappearance hits cold case file

read more...

 Obama / GOP / Democrats / TEA Party / Libertarians Guilty all, of Impeachable O

Manual of the Constitution New Page 1

Obama / GOP / Democrats / TEA Party / Libertarians

Guilty all, of Impeachable Offense

Violate the 14th Amendment of U.S.C.:

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.

Wait a minute: I still don’t understand why the idea of a debt ceiling is constitutional.

The last I heard, the Fourteenth Amendment is still part of the Constitution. Here’s 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.

Call me crazy, but that seems pretty straightforward: One may not take steps to impede the United States’ payment of its debts. 

That should mean that any law permitting or enabling the prevention of America paying its debts is prima facie unconstitutional. 

The debt ceiling statute, by asking members of Congress to decide whether the government may continue to pay the money it owes, is by definition a violation of the Constitution. 

Its very language questions the public debt of the United States.

Pelosi, Geithner and others have raised this argument several times in the last few years, but Obama punted then and he did it again this time (surprise, surprise) to avoid confrontation with Congress and stick to his mythical middle ground. 

Obama is afraid the House would impeach him and cause an even bigger crisis of confidence.

But it doesn’t have to be a confrontation between the branches. 

An outside goo-government group—or House Democrats—could and should go to the D.C. Circuit and challenge the constitutionality of the 1917 statute creating the debt ceiling. 

They should ask for a temporary injunction suspending enforcement of the law until the matter has been adjudicated.

A constitutional scholar might tell us that the public debt [what other debt is there for government but a public debt / obligation;  

But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-407 (1932) (dissenting opinion) (footnotes omitted).

Only the most compelling circumstances can justify this Court's abandonment of such firmly established statutory precedents. The best exposition of the proper burden of persuasion was delivered by Mr. Justice Harlan in Monroe itself:

"From my point of view, the policy of stare decisis, as it should be applied in matters of statutory construction, and, to a lesser extent, the indications of congressional acceptance of this Court's earlier interpretation, require that it appear beyond doubt from the legislative history of the 1871 statute that [United States v.] Classic, [313 U.S. 299 (1941)] and Screws [v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945)] misapprehended the meaning of the controlling provision, before a departure from what was decided in those cases would be justified." 365 U.S., at 192 (concurring opinion) (footnote omitted; emphasis added).Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 715 (1978)];

of the United States doesn’t refer to bills it has agreed to pay, but to repayment of bonds it floated—money it borrowed—to pay those bills. 

Even by that reading, any measure that raises questions about service of the debt—keeping up interest payments—should be unconstitutional. 

The fact that Republican caucus members suggest a way around it—paying the interest and stiffing everyone else—doesn’t negate the fact that the question has been raised, and that’s what’s unconstitutional.

Once you allow a vote on whether to continue paying the government’s bills, you are asking members of Congress to decide whether or not they want to honor the government’s debts.

That actually puts the members in a bind.

Every member [and the President], on entering office, did "solemnly swear" to "support and defend the Constitution" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to it.

Voting against an extension of the debt ceiling, thus preventing the government from paying its debts, amounts to violating the oath of office.

One could argue that it would subject them to removal.

In any event, the Supreme Court ruled in 1935, in Perry v. United States, that the 14th Amendment’s language should be construed as referring to all U.S. "public obligations," not just particular bonds up for payment.

Here’s what Chief Justice Hughes wrote about Section 4 of the 14th:

We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression ‘the validity of the public debt’ as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

Then there’s the question of precedent: Administrations have deferred to the debt ceiling law since it was first passed in 1917, so that validates it [slavery was precedent, spousal rape was precedent but right took the forefront as it should here.  More than this, it is penned to paper in the 14th Amendment that is the law of the land].

But the notion of a century of precedent hasn’t stopped this Supreme Court from doing what it wanted in the past, so it’s hard to see why it would now.

A more serious problem is that this court doesn’t seem willing to break with Republican policy on much of anything.

It’s hard to imagine Roberts & co. siding with the Constitution over the Tea Party on this either.

Maybe Kennedy would be willing to go along with reason. And if he didn’t and the United States’ credit rating plunged as a result of the court disavowing our constitutional commitment to the debt, at least we’d know we deserved it.

 

 



We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.



 
     Related Links
· More about Manual of the Constitution
· News by editor


Most read story about Manual of the Constitution:
Is the Patent System Working or Broken Panel Discussion


     Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


     Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

 Send to a Friend Send to a Friend


Associated Topics

Civil  RightsEditor UnAlienable RightsGeneral Counsel and Senior Law FellowsManual of the ConstitutionOrganic DocumentsPublic  Watch  Dog





Web site powered by Web Hosting USA

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © MM - MMXIII by the UnAlienable Rights Foundatation.

Google
WWW http://www.uarf.us

You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
Copyright, MMVIII, Unalienabe Rights Foundation (UARF), All Rigths Reserved
Page Generation: 0.31 Seconds
We try to keep price lists up to date. Price list of our pharmacies are updated daily - go to pharmacy online : Announcements of new drugs. Shares. Best price.