RSS

Tag Archives: 14th Amendment

Tim Scott – The “Smart” Black Republican… Gets Stupid

Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina has been hailed by many as the “smart” black Republican so far, for his refusal to prostitute himself with the sort of Lawn Jockey antics of Alan West of Florida – or Herman Cain.

Here, he jumps off a cliff, claiming he would seek to impeach President Obama for following the 14th Amendment.

THAT’s STOOOOOOOOPID!

And Tim Scott should have the IQ not to go there.

Whether the disputed clause in the 14th Amendment –

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.”

is applicable or not is a Constitutional question. In no way, other than in the most brain dead brainwashed conservatives fecund imagination does a Constitutional interpretation issue between the Executive and Legislature reach the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” bar set for the impeachment of a elected Federal Official…

However – trying to short circuit that conduct of legitimate business by the Government through the illegal and baseless threat of Impeachment…

Might.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

14th Amendment to The Rescue? Debt Ceiling…

Sweet Justice that the Amendment to the Constitution granting full citizenship rights to former slaves, which yesteryear’s Republicans passed, and is stoutly opposed by todays perverted version of Republicans who wish they could repeal it.

May again save the Union…

Digging Out of the Mess Republican Conservatism Created

This time from modern day Republicans bent on destroying the country.

14th Amendment: Democratic Senators See Debt Ceiling As Unconstitutional

Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned,” reads the 14th Amendment.

“This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. “I don’t think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I’ll tell you that it’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'”

By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that the constitutional solution puts the question in its proper context — that the debate is over paying past debts, not over future spending.

“The way everybody talks about this is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. What we’re really saying is, ‘We have to pay our bills,'” Murray said. The 14th Amendment approach is “fascinating,” she added.

The White House referred questions on the constitutionality of the debt ceiling to the Treasury Department. Treasury declined to comment…

The 14th Amendment became law in the wake of the Civil War, pushed by a Republican Congress eager to extend citizenship rights to freed slaves. But it also included a section dealing with federal debt: The government wanted to make clear to the market that even though loans to the Confederacy would not be paid back, any loans made to the U.S. government were still good.

In 1935, the Supreme Court held that despite the Civil War context, the amendment clearly referred to all federal debt.

“While [the 14th Amendment] was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation,” the majority wrote in Perry v. U.S. “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.”

The law at issue, which tried to override the validity of a bond offering, “went beyond the congressional power,” the Court ruled, setting a precedent that has not been overturned.

Because the government borrows based on its full faith, Congress doesn’t have the authority to undermine that confidence by reneging on its obligation to its lenders, the ruling declared.

“To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor,” reads the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. “This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.”

President Barack Obama, who taught constitutional law, hasn’t been afraid to assert executive authority. Most recently, he issued what amounted to a legal analysis defending the White House position that the military’s operations in Libya were not in violation of the War Powers Act…

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Scalia – 14th Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Women

Lot of conservative angst against the 14th Amendment. This most recent conversation with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the infamous co-authors of Gore vs. Bush which shattered the Constitution. Scalia’s newest?

The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to women.

Women in Chains - Just Fine by Scalia

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn’t itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, called the justice’s comments “shocking” and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.

“In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that’s up to them,” she said. “But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there’s nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that’s a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It’s especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection.”

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 3, 2011 in Stupid Republican Tricks, The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Republicans Try to Bring Back Slavery

Republican conservatives Yearn for the Good Ol' Days

Dissatisfied with efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act, some Republicans are trying to bring back slavery. The 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship rights to the newly freed slaves and reversed the Dred Scott Decision by a conservative Supreme Court.

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.

GOP leader McConnell: Fourteenth Amendment is in need of review

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.

McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

In an interview, McConnell said the 14th Amendment provision should be reconsidered in light of the country’s immigration problem.

McConnell stopped short of echoing Graham’s call for repeal of the amendment.

“I think we ought to take a look at it — hold hearings, listen to the experts on it,” McConnell said. “I haven’t made a final decision about it, but that’s something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don’t think anybody thinks that’s something they’re comfortable with.”

During an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Kyl said, “There is a constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what. … And so the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?”

Kyl added that he suggested to Graham that “we should hold some hearings and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is.”

It is unclear when such hearings would occur. Democrats, who control the Senate, set the chamber’s hearing schedule.

Proponents of comprehensive immigration reform strongly oppose the Republican-led effort, which could play a major role in firing up both the left and right this election year.

The escalating debate on the 14th Amendment comes in the wake of the legal battle between Arizona and the federal government over the state’s immigration law.

The idea of repealing the 14th Amendment has picked up steam among conservatives in recent weeks. Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas), the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced legislation to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. The legislation, previously introduced by retired Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.), has 93 co-sponsors.

Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) is the highest-ranking House Republican to formally co-sponsor the measure.

Graham, who had considered working with Democrats on immigration reform earlier this year, told Fox News last week that “birthright citizenship is a mistake.”

“We should change our Constitution and say if you come illegally and you have a child, that child is automatically not a citizen,” Graham said.

McConnell said the Obama administration needs to improve its ability to secure the country’s borders before tackling an amendment repeal.

“That’s how you get the credibility to deal with other aspects of the problem,” he said.

While President Obama’s push for immigration reform is considered dead in the 111th Congress, some Democrats on Capitol Hill are pushing for a scaled-back bill to move this fall.

One such option is Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) Dream Act, which would give undocumented students the right to apply for permanent residence in the U.S. Durbin’s bill has attracted praise from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), but Durbin has publicly noted that some Democrats are not on board.

Wonder what would happen to Rethuglys if they enforced this part?

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.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 3, 2010 in Stupid Republican Tricks, The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: