Full faith and credit and showdownarama 2013

[only_human]

World reactions: Rest Of The World Thinks Congress Is A ‘Laughing Stock' For Government Shutdown

While countries like Belize, Iran, Pakistan and Egypt face coups, revolutions, crippling debt, international sanctions, civil war and default, the threat of a government shutdown for them has never been a real one. As Georgetown University professor Erik Voeten writes in The Washington Post, "I cannot think of a single foreign analogy to what is happening in the U.S. today."

[R.D. Silverman]

A crazy idea....

The U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. can not default on its debts.

If Boehner will not bring it to a vote, can the Justice Department
have him arrested for treason (probably not)
or a simple violation of his oath of office?????

He swore to uphold the Constitution........

[chappy]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

A crazy idea....

The U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. can not default on its debts.

If Boehner will not bring it to a vote, can the Justice Department
have him arrested for treason (probably not)
or a simple violation of his oath of office?????

Not so crazy (except the treason part) but it isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

He swore to uphold the Constitution........

Impeachment could be a possibility except that Articles of Impeachment begin with a vote on of the House--unlikely to happen unless there is a full-scale revolt by the "moderate" and "less-crazy conservative" Republicans. And there is really no math that gets 2/3rds of the Senate to vote to impeach.

Nothing so far has really been of the level that would trigger this. Let's see what happens when the Wall Street crowd starts putting pressure on the Republicans.

The President has other options, they've been laughed at before on this forum. I think he should have done it. A single trillion dollar gold coin minted would show just how stupid this whole argument is.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chappy

The President has other options, they've been laughed at before on this forum.

What if Obama were simply to use his authority as President
(backed by the Constitutional requirement not to default)
and ORDERED the treasury department to pay U.S. debts???

[chappy]

That would be what he should have done in the spring. And one option was the super-value coin. I should have been clearer. See also the 14th amendment.

[chappy]

I'm not a huge Mother Jones fan, but this article is pretty well sourced.*

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ling-explained

*For example, number 10 which isn't sourced, is pretty much partisan nonsense. Republicans, in general, just don't think it is the government's job to provide healthcare. Stating number 10 in this manner is misstating the position.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chappy

*For example, number 10 which isn't sourced, is pretty much partisan nonsense. Republicans, in general, just don't think it is the government's job to provide healthcare. Stating number 10 in this manner is misstating the position.

It is hard to know the real reason why Republicans object to ACA.
Especially since many of the provisions were Republican ideas
in the first place. There could be a number of reasons.

One reason that I have heard is that the religious right objects to the
requirement that birth control be covered. I do not know whether this
reason is true.

I suspect that there are many reasons and that no single explanation is
correct.

BTW, the governement is not "providing healthcare". It is providing a
requirement that people get insurance. Is this distinction too subtle?

[chappy]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

It is hard to know the real reason why Republicans object to ACA.
Especially since many of the provisions were Republican ideas
in the first place. There could be a number of reasons.

One reason that I have heard is that the religious right objects to the
requirement that birth control be covered. I do not know whether this
reason is true.

I suspect that there are many reasons and that no single explanation is
correct.

BTW, the governement is not "providing healthcare". It is providing a
requirement that people get insurance. Is this distinction too subtle?

It is a distinction between reasons for objecting to something, and grasping at any objection to something you don't like. You've just made the point that many of the ideas in the ACA are similar to (in fact less intrusive than!) former Republican ideas put forth by the Heritage Foundation among others in the discussion of Universal Healthcare during the Clinton Admin.

As Kladner has pointed out these aren't the same Republicans these days. The Republican party has moved astonishingly far from the Center and the Libertarian wing of the party holds a much greater sway. Small government idealogues, etc.

The objection to birth control comes mainly from Catholics who form an overlapping but distinct voting block when compared to the 'religious right.' Of course this matters little here. Because you are right the idea is to pick apart any little part of the law and therefore declare all of it corrupt.

I don't like the color of the window dressing: burn down the house.

My favorite part of the whole debate is that the side that claims to be strict constitutionalists and "merely following the wishes of the founding fathers" ignores that the founding fathers passed mandatory purchasing acts and even mandatory healthcare acts several times. They never raised any objections to the notion as un-Constitutional or beyond the scope of Government powers.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

A crazy idea....

The U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. can not default on its debts.

Does that carry with it the responsibility to not pass unfunded laws? Also, what precisely constitutes "default" in a context of a government which can emit unbacked currency at will? Does steadily eroding the value of the currency to support deficit spending constitute default?

If Boehner will not bring it to a vote, can the Justice Department
have him arrested for treason (probably not)
or a simple violation of his oath of office?????

He swore to uphold the Constitution........

So did the president. I haven't seen you object to the massive trampling of the 4th amendment that has been ongoing. Selective about which parts of the Constitution you "care about"? Or just another typically blinkered partisan who is too busy "blaming the other side" to realize that the real problems facing the country are all bipartisan in who-is-to-blame. Sure, the GOP are massive hypocrites ... as is the president for breaking - and not in small ways - virtually every major campaign promise he made.

Geez, I'm so tired of allegedly-intelligent people continually falling for this distractive red-team/blue-team bullcrap.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

So did the president. I haven't seen you object to the massive trampling of the 4th amendment that has been ongoing. Selective about which parts of the Constitution you "care about"?

I have spoken against the illegal spying.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Does that carry with it the responsibility to not pass unfunded laws? Also, what precisely constitutes "default" in a context of a government which can emit unbacked currency at will? Does steadily eroding the value of the currency to support deficit spending constitute default?

To the first point there is no Constitutional reasoning that makes your first paragraph meaningful.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

So did the president. I haven't seen you object to the massive trampling of the 4th amendment that has been ongoing. Selective about which parts of the Constitution you "care about"? Or just another typically blinkered partisan who is too busy "blaming the other side" to realize that the real problems facing the country are all bipartisan in who-is-to-blame. Sure, the GOP are massive hypocrites ... as is the president for breaking - and not in small ways - virtually every major campaign promise he made.

To the second point: way to change the subject to another unrelated subject so that you confuse people into thinking you have a valid point.

Get the Supremes to rule your way on the NSA and the fourth amendment, nearly everyone on this forum agrees with you, then talk about it in that thread where it is appropriate not here where it is just noise.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Geez, I'm so tired of allegedly-intelligent people continually falling for this distractive red-team/blue-team bullcrap.

And I'm tired of allegedly-intelligent people either continually failing basic argumentation class or purposefully baiting the cheese-eaters with utter nonsense.

Spending is flat, deficits are falling despite decreases in revenue, the treasury has plenty of options to fund paying the debt we've already accrued.
Bullet-proof in the courts and bitter for the so-called fiscal conservatives who are currently creating this crisis.

This isn't a red-team/blue-team thing--its a how we respond to fake crises thing. Just because the red-team has currently staffed themselves with crazy doesn't mean that they will always be in the wrong. That doesn't change that right now they are wrong.