jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (86 posts)

the US constitution

  1. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago

    Section 7


    1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Section 8
    1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    Article XIV. (Fourteenth Amendment)

    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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    �-------------------------------�

    First, this is a discussion of the debt ceiling hostage crisis from a constitutional framework. I posted what I consider central to the issue. I welcome differing points of view WHICH CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Please cite your constitutional argument, but keep silly opinions to yourself.

    There is NOTHING in the constitution that makes it the job of the president to appropriate funds or borrow. It's specifically the job of the House of Representatives. Not the Executive branch.

    However, it would be a blatant lie to suggest the Executive branch, the president and vice-president have been AWOL. Joe Biden engaged in weeks of negotiations which identified 1.5 Trillion in cuts but the administration wanted republicans to agree to close tax loopholes and roll back subsidies (corporate welfare) to oil companies. The GOP walked out without engaging in ANY negotiations. Do they have any idea what 'compromise' means? The president personally got involved with negotiations, opting the offer to 4 TRILLION in cuts, holding to the requirement there must also be increased revenue.

    Note: At no time in ANY of the negotiations was it requested by the administration that taxes be raised. They proposed closing loopholes that allow some of the most profitable companies in the US go tax-free. The GOP didn't reject the position of the administration - they refused to listen.

    Next month, because of the failure of the House, there will not be enough money to pay the bills. And the Tea Party wants to blame President Obama for a crisis they engineered. The Constitution says whose fault this is.

    The situation is unconstitutional according to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment. To forestall economic terrorism by the Southern states who lost the war, congress put in a debt guarantee. Its not a guarantee of the 'national debt'. It's a guarantee of the 'PUBLIC DEBT', and it says 'INCLUDING PENSIONS'.

    My interpretation is that the House is in violation of Article 14. They can raise the debt ceiling to pay the bills. They can raise taxes to pay the bills. By refusing to do either, they put the country in default and the responsibility,  fault & blame falls squarely on the GOP.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think you are spot on.  Good work

    2. profile image70
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Gee Doug, your such a Constitutional scholar, I'm suprised you're not on the Supreme Court!

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, junior. It's not about me.

        It's about the abysmal mess the Teabaggers will create by failing in their duty.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Of course it is about you - did you even read your initial posting and count the personal pronouns.  the only time I have heard anyone talk more about themselves and make rules for everyone else is when Barry speaks.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't expect you know much about writing, but the first person pronouns 'I' and 'me'.

            The only place you find those pronouns are in the invitation for a constitutional rebuttal.

            ". I posted what I consider central to the issue. I welcome differing points of view WHICH CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Please cite your constitutional argument, but keep silly opinions to yourself."

            True to form, you can't muster a constitutional argument, but you attack me.... which is a silly argument because its not about me.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              As a liberal everything always is about you and how you feel.  Liberals must feel good about the money our government is destroying so feel good Doug it is destroying all of it as we speak.

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You say to leave our silly opinions out and to site Constitutional justification for our positions.  You then engage in opinion without Constitutional justification. 

      1) There is no Constitutional requirement that Congress ever cooperate with the President.

      2) The revenue taken in each month by the Federal government of the United States is around $220 billion.  That is enough to service the debts of the country and maintain the Governments other Constitutionally charged responsibilities but little else.

      3) What is default?  Is it the inability to service ones obligations?  The Government has more than sufficient revenues do that so how is it in default.

      Older info but analogous:
      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing … evenue.cfm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_ta … e_by_state

      Some newer numbers reflecting the income and spending trends.

      http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc122 … 05_MBR.pdf

      http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/201 … dividuals/

      But we all know by now that Congress does as it wishes.  One need only look at the GM bankruptcy to know that a Democrat Congress clearly allowed the Constitution to be undermined by the Executive:

      Article One
      Section Eight

      "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States" - What other CORPORATION would get GM's deal?  Not even Chrysler - they had to find an investor - Fiat. (Ironically named given Barry's rule by fiat during this whole episode)

      How about the responsibility over the budget?  the Democrat Congress didn't vote on an intact budget just "Stimulus" disasters, Debt Ceiling increases and continuing resolutions.

      I find it also ironic when the liberal cleaves to the Constitution as a scoundrel's haven.

    4. JON EWALL profile image46
      JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Doug Hughes
      ‘’By refusing to do either, they put the country in default and the responsibility, fault & blame falls squarely on the GOP.’’
      Blame the GOP for not doing their job, seems that you neglected the other 2/3’s of our government. The Democrats have had 2/3’s majority  control of the government since Jan 2007. When Obama took office in Jan. 2009, he had a SUPER majority Democrat Congress. Super majority means that the Republicans just showed up to make an appearance.

      Allow me to add recent replies to the deficit problems, facts hard to find in the liberal world.

      The REPUBLICAN House presented A plan in Feb, the Ryan 2012 budget
      The DEMOCRAT  Senate has not presented a plan ,2012 budget
      President Obama has not presented his plan
      It appears that the GOP are working hard to come up with a solution. The other 2/3’s are just talking and crying about the other party.
      President Obama spoke on Saturday and  said that we are all in ballgame.
      Our country is not a dictatorship and OBAMA IS NOT OUR DICTATOR. Stop the behind closed door sessions, put all the issues open to the public. Submit a bill, debate the bill and vote on the bill, that’s how our government is suppose to work.
      What you see when Obama speaks is not what you get, THAT’S A FACT.
      WHAT THE COUNTRY NEEDS IS MORE TAXPAYERS NOT MORE TAXES.
      JOBS   JOBS  JOBS

      NOTE the Obama administration has added $4.5 trillion to the national debt since Jan 2009.Record unemployment 9.2%, record citizens on food stamps 43,000, record lowest money coming into the treasury and record time allowed on unemployment 99 weeks. Simple solution, the country needs more taxpayers not more taxes. The size of government has grown 20% since Obama took office IN 2009 and have added 25 more government agencies. Would any sane person want to listen to or follow his leadership?

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You hit all your talking points....

        and didn't address the OP. The HOUSE is charged in the Constitution with originating the bills to pay the 'public debt', not the national debt, WITHOUT QUESTION!

        I understand that Teabaggers disagree with many programs that have passed into law by previous Congresses. The 14th amendment, Section 4, requires those programs be funded. You can not repeal by unfunding!!!

        1. profile image60
          foreignpressposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          From Answers.com:
          Teabagger: A derogatory term, used mostly by the far left "fringe," to describe a group of American people who assemble peacefully to protest out of control government spending. The term "tea bagger" is used to mock these people because the group associates their cause with the original Boston Tea Party which was instrumental in starting the first American Revolution.
          _________________________
          And so, Mr. Hughes, it would appear that you demand civility yet you give none. Considering the above definition of teabagger, however, I am proud to call myself one.  Now, what would I call a far-left fringe kook who wants to raise the debt ceiling ad infinitum. A moron? or a traitor? Blame the House if you will, but Obama (Democrats) insists on more spending and therein lies the problem. Truman (a Democrat) said the "Buck stops here." Good advice. So do it.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Foreignpress claims to be a writer - has 29 followers and NO HUBS!!!!!

            All Hail the the king of the trolls.

      2. Dennis AuBuchon profile image81
        Dennis AuBuchonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        John,

        I totally agree with everything you have said.  The debt ceiling is something many individuals do not understand.  We do not have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.  Getting the economy back on track and removing restrictive costs on businesses will provide an incentive to hire additional workers.  The more people that have jobs will increase the government revenue and also increase demand for goods and services.  Individuals who are not working typically do not spend as they have a limited budget and must make choices on what they will buy.

        Great response

    5. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely!

      Dereliction of Duty.
      Insurrection against the President of the United States.

      Obstructing government.

      Throwing a Big baby hissy fit!

      Sucking their thumbs while Obama tries his best to CORRECT BUSHCO'S DAMAGE.

      They will let America burn before lifting one finger to help the president WE elected!

      I have complete contempt and disgust for them. They have shown themselves to be selfish little cry-babies who still think the world revolves around them.

    6. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The House is trying to resolve the issue.  It is the president throwing fits.  At least you admit that Barry O'  is meddling in to things that are not within his job description.  He needs to admit he can only spend the allowance that the House allows him to do.

      Barry is out of his league.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The debt limit was raised 7 times during Bush's term without major fanfare.  Why shouldn't Obama expect the same courtesy?

        1. TMMason profile image70
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That is because in order to fund the troops and not leave them with nothing... he had to give the Democrats everything they demanded.

          And he is a Progressive, anyways.... so he is not far from them at all ideologically. So that wasn't a big push for them to have to make.

        2. Reality Bytes profile image93
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          He can have his debt-ceiling raised.  There just needs to be cuts in order to pay for them.  Bush = Obama what is the difference?


          Both of them have set a course of destruction for our country.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Fair enough.  But your characterization of Obama "throwing fits" is unfair and wrong.  It is the Republicans who are "throwing fits" by making the debt ceiling an issue tied to spending cuts.  After blissfully spending for years (with the help of the Dems, for sure), they suddenly feel frugal.  Yeah, right.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Every two years the entire House of Representatives stands for election.  This past November the issues that propelled a large number of brand new Republican members to the House with the biggest swing in party representation since the 1930s. The public debt, taxation and spending were the issues that resulted in a monumental defeat for establishment Republicans and Democrats.  It is the recklessness with spending that is fueling the crisis in Europe, why would we be exempt from this - are we that kind of exceptional?

              The composition of the House has changed and so have the goals of the House - that was the original intent behind the two year terms for Representatives.  There is no hypocrisy because the old guard is being swept away by a new and far more conservative order.  This is why John Boehner appears to be wobbly to most conservatives.  He is so used to being the whimpy opposition to liberal Democrat(redundant) ideologues that he has forgotten that he comes from the real world not the liberal fantasy utopia.

              So it is no sudden change to "frugality" it is a political change within the composition of the House.

              I find the disconnect between cutting spending and the debt ceiling to be beyond rational explanation.  If you have credit card debt that is so great as to threaten your feeding your family wouldn't you cut spending?  Increasing income doesn't work.  Every time taxes have been raised spending has increased.  Every time the flow of money to the Federal government increases because Americans are smart, hard working and productive spending increases.

              Revenues are in decline, millions of Americans are not producing or under producing, our credit rating is threatened and liberals want to raise taxes and spend more.  Nothing new there.

              1. TMMason profile image70
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yup.

                Well spoken, UC.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Democrats have agreed it is necessary to cut spending.  The majority of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, believe that, in order to repay the debts already incurred, we should also raise revenues by asking the wealthiest to pay a little more.

                I know this doesn't make sense to you, but you are in the minority. 

                By stubbornly refusing to raise the debt ceiling just to protect their wealthy donors while ignoring the wishes of their middle class constituency, the Republicans are showing who they truly serve.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There are fundamental economic principles that demonstrate that you do not raise taxes during a recession.  We have been in recession for far more than 4 quarters meaning this is a depression.  Raising taxes does not guarantee increased revenue.  Who do you want to raise taxes on?  Those who make more than $250,000 per year?  Who are these people? 

                  I would much rather be in a minority that is right and protects personal property than in a majority that is wrong and does not.  Majorities are not automatically correct,  there is no divine power to majorities especially when they are driven by greed. 

                  The Federal government takes in sufficient revenue to service its Constitutional and contractual obligations and then some.  Since the economy was roaring and everything was perfect - even the President - when Bill Clinton was in office why not wind everything back to those numbers(adjusting for inflation.)  Didn't Billy balance the budget - saint that he was.

                  As for the majority supporting tax increases, do you have a source I would read that.

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    In ALL the budget negotiations about raising the  debt ceiling, the President has ONLY proposed closing tax loopholes, not raising taxes. This was a GIFT to the GOP, because they could have increased revenue in a prudent way without 'raising taxes'.

                    Compromise means both sides give to achieve a common goal. The budget negotiations have offered cuts to revenue at a ratio of 3 to 1.. That is 3 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue, and the negotiations  have asked for revenue in a way that doesn't threaten the GOP campaign pledge not to raise taxes.

                    They blew it off.

        3. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It was wrong to raise the debt while GWB was POTUS and it is wrong now.  It is not a courtesy to mortgage the future productivity of the American Economy and propel the country even further down the Greek road.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree.  It is one thing to take a "mortgage" for such things as the interstate system or real science research (and I don't mean counting the fuzz on a caterpillar).

            It is quite another to take a mortgage to give it away for nothing in return but to provide for those that won't provide for themselves or, even worse, give it to non-citizens in the form of foreign aid or support for illegal aliens.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              or to award it as to political friends like GE, ostensibly for "green" technology.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Absolutely.  A trade of money - tax receipts for campaign funds to buy votes.  I can't see that those taxe receipts are actually providing any value at all to the country.  To the politician, indubitably, but not to the country.

                There is much in "research" that is nonsense.  "Green" technology may well be valuable but the key is to determine what is and what is not.  Much, if not most, of the funding provided there is nothing more than a method to pad the bottom line and provides nothing for the country.

          2. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Funny--I never even HEARD about it back then!!

            And, errr, weren't all the same people in office back then too???

            Errr--wasn't Boehner there? Cantor? Did they change their minds all of a sudden?


            ahahahahahaha--transparent as a flimsy nightgown.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Didn't Barry vote against it then and now he expects everyone else to vote for it.  Typical liberal hypocrisy, exempt oneself from the condition you would impose on others.

              1. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That is not what I asked.....I see you don't like answering questions about your buddies.

                How come ALl the Repubs had NO problem when Bush did it??And they ALL have a problem now?

                Obama has changed jobs, in case you forgot..his perspective must change! But--these guys are still congress people....what has changed, besides a Dem being in the office?

                1. S Leretseh profile image61
                  S Leretsehposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "what has changed"
                  Over 4 trillion in NEW debt!!!  dearie...since - unaccomplshed - O took office.

                  1. lovemychris profile image81
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And? It's on the budget....unlike Bush's.

                    Stop taking so much money out of the system, and we won't have such a big problem.

                    Millionaires and billionaires have had enough of the good life at our expense.

                    How much more does the middle class have to fall before enough tax cuts are enough?

                    How much of that debt is the extending of Bushco's tax cut?

                2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Every two years the entire house of Representatives stands for election.  There are 80 new Republican Representatives - they all had a problem with GWB's spending, Mike Pence and others had problems with GWB's spending.  Your ignorance of events doesn't mean they did not happen.

                  1. lovemychris profile image81
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    They had a problem with it?
                    When?
                    AFTER he left office?
                    So they could claim their skewering of Obama is "fair and balanced"?

                    get outta here....all I ever remember is fawning at Bushco's feet...from all the Rethugs.
                    It was support the president, or go away.

                    NOW< it's bash the president, show your patriotism!

                    Bunch of BS! And it fools no one.

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    The US has already defaulted on its debt numerous times before.

    Example one: 1933, when FDR stole the gold from US citizens and then stripped the money from the gold standard. It was clear that there was way too much paper and not enough gold. So FDR just defaulted... by stealing the money.

    Example two: 1971, when Nixon removed all connections whatsoever to our money and the gold standard when it was clear that the US could never redeem enough gold upon demand to foreigners.

    Also: your example is flawed (but of course my argument will fall on deaf ears) because "general welfare" does not mean "anything at all" because the 10th amendment clearly restricts the federal government's ability to spend money on things ONLY listed in A1 S8.

    So, your argument would sound fantastic to the 9 mace-weilding Death Knights on High who shriek "Oyez Oyez Oyez", causing panic, fear, and strife amongst those who hear it...

    ... but not to people who have read the Federalist #41.

  3. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Would any sane person want to listen to or follow his leadership?"

    We don't know. The ah Repubs don't bother to. They call him names, say he's a liar and that he hates America. Let the Bagger-Butts take up whole months with the stupid birther nonsense, and obstruct everything he tries to do.

    Jobs Jobs Jobs.....that was the mantra for Boehner, remember...HE said your Repubs will get the jobs jobs jobs....just elect them. Well....you did!!

    Where are the jobs jobs jobs?
    Sacrificed to yet more tax cuts for billionaires.....the ONLY thing your Repubs care about.

  4. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Also, you never cited article two anywhere.

    The executive branch of our federal government has only about (and I'm being generous here) 10 powers - most of them are just appointing people to figurehead positions.

    The president doesn't have nearly as much power in this "debt compromise" as you argue.

  5. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    @the American Left and Progressive Right...

    ---"But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."---

    And I believe by Law we do not have to pay any of you... you have all betrayed us through subversive means, and economic warfare, and have sold us to China... who we won't pay either.

    I would not even appoint you public defenders... the American Socialist Democrat Left, and the Progressive Right, are traitors!

    Cuff 'em and start the hangings for treason.

  6. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    Ah, Mr. Mason:  premiere authority, judge, and jury.  Do you have the guts to be the executioner as well, or is your tough talk confined to the comfort of your computer chair?

    1. TMMason profile image70
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      For betraying our country... I would hang them with my own hands.... yes, PP.

      I have served my country in conflict, PP. There are deadlier things in life then hanging traitors. Of course we could simply drop them into an active theatre and watch them run.

      I myself was a lil disappointed the lil Leftists never did the human shield thing for the Muslims in the Middle East, that they screamed about doing so vehemantly.

      That would have been amusing.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'll be watching to see when you take action then, T.M.  It will be interesting to see how well you fare against others who have also served and survived torture, gunshots, and starvation, and happen to believe that exercising freedom of thought and expression is the opposite of traitorous here in the good ol' US of A.

        You are somethin' else.  roll

        1. TMMason profile image70
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Where do you see me say at any time that, "excersizing the right to freedom of thought, expression, or speech, is the treasonous acts I am talking about?

          Nowhere.

          Those are just the usefull idiots, PP.

          Don't get confused, hun.

          Slow down... we wouldn't want to hang an innocent men or women. You just let me handle this. smile

          And just to make sure those are fair trials... we will use the template set by on of the Left's favorite all time heroes.... "Uncle Joe" Stalin. smile

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Typical.  Resort to patronizing and denial.  Of course, you didn't use those exact words.  You did, however, call for the execution of entire group of people, without legal representation, based upon their political beliefs, and according to your own personal judgment of their actions.  Is that what you fought for, TM?  Your own personal ability to judge and execute people?  Really?

            1. TMMason profile image70
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Groups.

              Plural.

              And it is based upon their actions and intent.

              And they are welcome to legal representaiton as they can afford it or when someone volunteers.

              I am sure the ACLU will represent them, PP... don't worry.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not worried about your personal fantasy coming true, TM.  You're too busy typing on internet forums to actually DO something. 

                Yes, the ACLU represents those in need, like all of these poor persecuted Christians:

                The ACLU of Virginia (2011) defended the free religious expression of a group of Christian athletes in Floyd County High School who had copies of the Ten Commandments removed from their personal lockers.
                http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/feb/25/a … -co-hig...

                The ACLU of Connecticut (2011) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Naval officer who sought recognition as a conscientious objector because of his Christian convictions against war. After a period of intense religious study, reflection, and prayer, he had come to realize that his religious beliefs were in conflict with his military service. The officer’s request was subsequently granted and he received an honorable discharge.
                http://www.acluct.org/legal/religiousli … scharg.htm
                http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyreg … &sq...

                The ACLU of Florida (2010) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a local homeless ministry, the First Vagabonds Church of God, challenging an Orlando ordinance that prohibits service of food to groups in the same public park more than twice per year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit eventually enjoined the city from enforcing the ordinance, allowing the church to resume providing food to the homeless.
                http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?acti … ertID=3668
                http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc … s-feedi...


                The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas (2010) filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Texas state prisoner seeking damages after prison officials denied him the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services.
                http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights-re … isoner-...

                The ACLU and the ACLU of Maryland (2010) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of Steven Kanai, a conscientious objector who self-identified as a Christian but also found meaning in the non-violent and compassionate teachings of Buddhism.
                http://www.blhny.com/docs/Kanai%20Amicu … U%20MD.pdf

                The ACLU, its national chapter in Puerto Rico, and its affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (2010) filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing restrictive laws that effectively ban Jehovah’s Witnesses from freely expressing their faith on the streets of Puerto Rico. The brief supports a challenge by the Witnesses to Puerto Rico statutes authorizing local neighborhoods to deny citizens access to public residential streets.
                http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/acl … vahs-wi...


                The ACLU of Maryland (2009) successfully settled a lawsuit on behalf of a Christian ministry for the homeless in the town of Elkton, Maryland, which had purchased a site for a religious day center to help the local community through job training, food, showers, and religious services. Though the site is legally zoned for the use of churches and centers that provide those services, the zoning board had refused to recognize the religious nature of the center, placing unreasonable limitations on the ministry. The ACLU of Maryland reached a favorable settlement with the town, affirming the church’s right to operate its day center for the homeless.
                http://aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2009/the … ement.html
                http://www.aclu-md.org/legal/Legal.html … GION-48213

                The ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey (2009) filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner – an ordained Pentecostal minister – to restore his fundamental right to preach to other inmates. The minister had preached at weekly Christian worship services at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey for more than a decade when prison officials suddenly banned that activity without any justification. As a result of the ACLU lawsuit, state officials agreed to allow the minister to resume preaching and teaching Bible study classes under the supervision of prison staff.
                http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/ord … -can-pr...

                The ACLU of Florida (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two families from the Dove World Outreach Center, defending their constitutional right to express themselves in public school with t-shirts stating, “Islam is of the devil.” The suit claims that the school has been inconsistent in enforcing restrictions on free speech.
                http://www.gainesville.com/article/2009 … 18?Titl...

                The ACLU of Michigan (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the First Baptist Church of Ferndale after local residents cited a zoning ordinance to prevent the church from providing social services to the poor and homeless on church property. The ACLU argued that zoning boards may not burden the free exercise of religion simply because neighbors object. The Oakland County Circuit Court denied the request of the residents, allowing the church to continue providing services.
                http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/20 … 478506.txt

                The ACLU of Tennessee (2009) came to the defense of a group of student teachers who conduct church services with the homeless in a public park. The ACLU successfully negotiated with the Metro Board of Parks and Recreation to revise a policy that had unfairly blocked religious groups’ regular use of park space.
                http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/acl … s-behal...

                The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia (2009) argued against the censorship of religious materials being sent to detainees in the Rappahannock Regional Jail. The ACLU wrote a letter to the superintendent of the jail, asking that the jail stop removing Christian-themed materials and biblical passages from letters written to detainees. As a result of ACLU involvement, the prison agreed to change its policies and allow religious mail.
                http://www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/402 … 90709.html

                The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) argued for the right of Christian preachers to distribute pamphlets at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival. The ACLU wrote a letter to the mayor in support of the preachers, who had been ordered to stop handing out religious material.
                http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom … hetownt...

                The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Donald Leger, a devout Catholic and prisoner on death row at Angola State Prison. The lawsuit challenged a prison policy mandating that all televisions on death row be tuned to predominately Baptist programming on Sunday mornings. Under the terms of a settlement in the case, Mr. Leger was able to view Catholic Mass regularly and was permitted private confessional visits with a priest.
                http://www.laaclu.org/newsArchive.php?id=342#n342

                The ACLU of Texas (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU urged the court to reverse a decision that had prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also had sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In June 2009, the Texas Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of the pastor.
                http://aclutx.org/article.php?aid=726

                1. TMMason profile image70
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Good, then we are agreed.

                  The ACLU can represent them.

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    PP - haven't seen you in a while..

                    If you didn't see my post.. 'A lie is a Lie', look it up.

                    It's worth knowing who the liars are and how they got caught and who's defending them.

  7. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    How do the Democrats even keep a straight face about cutting when obama-care alone is going to bankrupt us.

    What a joke they are... that bill and many more which should be cut are off the table... but it is everyone elses fault that we are going to go bust.

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    obama-care is corporate and drug corporation care and yes they will bankrupt us.

  9. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    here's another flaw in the argument:

    "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."

  10. uncorrectedvision profile image59
    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago

    If we are to expect adherence to the Constitution in everything the government does than there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling since the total out lay by the Federal government would be less than the $2.6 trillion it brings in each year.  It is the extra-Constitutional activities of the Federal government so loved by liberals that has destroyed our economic viability.

  11. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Obama wants to raise taxes, the Republicans want No tax increases."

    Obama wants to raise taxes on Uber wealthy people....something that is LONG overdue.
    They live here, get the BEST America has to offer...and have no loyalty to her? I don't think so. Many Ubers agree they should pay more.

    Cause here's the dirty little secret about Repubs: They will say no new taxes, but the cost of living goes sky-high.
    So, instead of taxing upper incomes, it will cost more to get your car inspected, but a dump sticker, more fees, fines, charges, etc.
    They get the money to make up for tax cuts for Ubers on the backs of people just trying to live.

    Talk about a Ponzi Scheme....this one takes the cake.

    1. TMMason profile image70
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      it is Obama and the Democrats who have not allowed a Cost of Living increase for Soc. Sec. for the last 2 years now... so you need to think again on that one. They, Obama and the Democrats, have said that in the last 2 years there has been no increase in the cost of living... that is a joke.

      And you do no cut your debt and spending, by getting more credit and spending more money... that is a retarded understanding of the way things work.

      You cut spending, --Union stimuluses and bailouts to wall street to keep the markets up, (you all cried the other day about 2 trillion in private funds on the side-lines of wall strreet, but you want to continue funding the propped up markets with more stimulus spending... what a joke. If the Govt is going to dump our monbey into the problem to support it, then why would any business man or Co. ever put their own funds into it.)

      ...and programs such as OBAMA-CARE, which not a one of you on the Left seem to remember, we said would brake us if passed.

      And Obama talking about cuts from spending 10 to 15 years out is BS... cut now.

      And yes Chris... we are well aware that a great many of those who have seen the best of blessings from this nation, have betrayed us. Many of wealthiest have sold us out to globalists and one world Commie/Socialist scum.

      Well aware of what those Leftists Progressive trash have done.

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How does one define such an objective measure as UBER-rich?  The top 1% pay more taxes than 95% of the population.  If anyone isn't paying their fair share it is the bottom 47%.  They are far more likely to use all government services, police, hospitals, welfare, food stamps, jails, prisons and schools and yet do not pay taxes.  What people receive free of charge year after year not only becomes taken for granted but becomes expected.

      When one continually subsidizes poverty it cripples the poor.  But isn't that what liberals want a permanently infantilized under class that they can point to and say look at what we are doing "for" them, aren't we special.  When it should be - what we are doing to them - but what ever it takes for liberals to feel better about themselves regardless of the harm it does.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If the 1% are paying 95% of the taxes, it's because they have 95% of the wealth!!!

        And you are wrong....Murdoch paid no taxes, in fact...got money back.
        Exxon mobil paid no taxes in 2010.
        The head of Viacom made 84.5 million dollars......does he pay at 35% or 15?

        I say a guy who makes 84.5 million dollars does not get another tax break, while seniors on fixed incomes have their Social Security cut!

        Think about it....the average senior lives on $18,000 a year...what is that, 2 minutes of this dudes time??

        It's obscene.

  12. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    ----"Congratulations to the 39 new recipients of coveted Obamacare waivers!

    The latest batch was disclosed yesterday on the HHS/CMS website:

    Updated July 15, 2011

    As of the end of June 2011, a total of 1,471 one-year waivers have been granted. This update includes 39 new approvals. The number of enrollees in plans with annual limits waivers is 3.2 million, representing only about 2 percent of all Americans who have private health insurance today.

    Waiver applications will no longer be accepted after September 22, 2011. As noted above, on June 17, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a process for plans that have already received waivers and want to renew those waivers for plan or policy years beginning before January 1, 2014. The new guidance extends the duration of waivers that have been granted through 2013, if applicants submit annual information about their plan and comply with requirements to ensure that their enrollees understand the limits of their coverage. Existing waiver recipients must apply to extend their current waiver and all applications must be submitted by September 22, 2011; after that date applications for an extension will no longer be considered. Any plans that have not yet applied for a waiver also must apply by September 22, 2011."---

    http://michellemalkin.com/


    Yup... keep funding this piece of garbage bill, and the others, and we will be broke.

    It is all by design though.

    Add massive entitlements we know we cannot afford, then cry and whine we are going broke and cannot afford anything... and then scream about cutting other entitlemnts to afford the new ones.... and point the blame at the other side... what a laugh.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I think what's funny is crying about a deficit, when you enlarged it by some 3 trillion for the next guy coming in!

      The Big Ones that ATE up our money:
      Bush's tax cuts, the wars, the prescription drug bill.
      Know why?

      They weren't PAID FOR. We are now paying back for those happy pills the richistans gave each other: high five!!

      Obama took Bush's debts to add onto his own...Bush got off scott free.

      Once we pay back for Bushco, then you can scream about Obama.
      How's that sound??? Or should Obama take the blame for Buscho?
      He has been.....I'm just wonderin how that squares with anyone with half a brain.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That number is actually $2.6 trillion for GWB.  In Barry's first year he over spent by $1 trillion.  This year he wants to over spend by $1.6 trillion.  In three years Barry has added more debt than that spending machine GWB did in 8. Way to go Barry - I guess if we really want to limit spending we term limit Barry.

  13. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

    -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 16, 2006---

  14. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "As director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan, David Stockman knows a thing or two about trying to balance the national budget. And he's convinced that Reagan would never support extending the Bush tax cuts of today. Stockman, who still considers himself a staunch conservative and a staunch Republican, thinks extending those tax cuts would be akin to a bankruptcy filing by Congress and the White House."

  15. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Today, the President will announce his intent to nominate Richard Cordray to serve as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On Thursday, the CFPB makes its transition from a start-up to a real, live agency with the authority to write rules and to supervise the activities of America’s largest banks.

    The DNA of the new consumer agency is well established. Our mission is clear: No one should be tricked in any financial transaction. Prices and risks should be clear. People should be able to make apples-to-apples comparisons. Fine print should be mowed down, not used to hide nasty surprises. And, everyone — even trillion dollar banks — should follow the law.

    There’s lots of good news, but make no mistake: this agency still has enemies in Washington, D.C. And they have a plan.

    In May, forty-four Republican Senators wrote a letter saying that they will block anyone from serving as CFPB Director. Many of them don’t like the agency or the ideas that led to its creation. They lost that fight last summer in a straight-up vote, but they say they will use a filibuster over a Director nomination to undercut the agency. Without a Director, however, the agency’s authority over payday lenders, debt collectors and other non-bank financial companies can be challenged. The Republicans say that they will permit a Director only if the agency is amended to make it less independent and less likely to act."
    --Elizabeth Warren

    Catching on yet?

  16. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago

    Yes, i am catching on...yet another highly paid appointed presidential czar manning a highly paid staff who is answerable to no one but the president that appoint them...I'd say it's an outright cast of skirting the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution.  And yet another way to spend more money on capitol hill.  We catching on fast.  No wonder the Republicans are in doubt.  Hopefully this is not a repeat of the appointee who runs the NLRB...another out of control agency.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Riiiight, cause the woman who set it up is a liar, like all non-rethugs. Right?

      "No one should be tricked in any financial transaction. Prices and risks should be clear. People should be able to make apples-to-apples comparisons. Fine print should be mowed down, not used to hide nasty surprises. And, everyone — even trillion dollar banks — should follow the law."

      44 Republican senators will block this. It's clear as day. They work for Big Money, not the America people.

  17. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Thank God Obama is there, looking out for us!

    ps; just heard Elizabeth Warren might challenge Scott Brown for that senate seat.....he's an allright dude, but he serves Big Money as well.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know if you've noticed this, but under Obama's watch, large corporations have received trillions of dollars.

      They could have easily just given that money to the people to spend as they see fit - but instead it went to bailouts of companies and banks.

      I REALLY don't know what you see in this guy, other than swag.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Told you already...he's on the team that's flushing out the crap and decrepitude from "the cosmic toilet"! lol

        He was put there for the changing of the guard....the old boys network is going to visit Ed Norton...in the sewers. "Hey Ralphie boy!"

        1. lovemychris profile image81
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh my god...I just went here, and found this:

          "Tuesday, July 19, 2011
          Rupert Murdoch Dogpaddles over the Cosmic Sewer."

          That is too funny!!

          http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm struggling to find which "toilets" he's "flushing"...

          * Trillions of stolen money given to politically connected businesses and banks

          * Not a single war ended

          * In fact, he's started 1 or 2 more.

          * Guantanamo is still open

          * Rampant monetary inflation that he likely demanded to help be reelected (no, the Federal Reserve is NOT independent)

          * Claims that only the Democrats can establish employment.

          And other garbage.

          This guy's swag has blinded you.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It seems to me that if liberals love Obama for his foolishness and excesses they should like GWB for his modest efforts at the things Obama has taken to another quantum level.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Don't get me wrong, I hate W about as much as anyone can hate someone, but Obama is probably worse.

              It's mind-numbing to hear liberals defend the man just because his political party starts with a D instead of an R.

              ... and he looks stylish... A snake in sheep's clothing, perhaps.

  18. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "There is no money left"

    There's no money to begin with! It's made up, like fluffy clouds....just a usury tool. It does not exist.
    You cannot produce 2 trillion dollars......so why worry?

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      More demonstration of your inability to understand money.

  19. JON EWALL profile image46
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

    Hubbers

    Mark your calendar 7/19/11 , the Republican majority House of Representatives made the call  today to President Obama’s position on the National Debt limits. The House passed a CUT, CAP and BALANCE bill that will require a Federal  balanced budget amendment. Seems like the do nothing Republicans are finally doing something to save our country.
    President Obama said that he will not sign the House bill. Somehow Obama and the Democrats don’t want the government to have to balance the federal budget. Balancing the budget did happen when President Clinton  had a majority controlled Republican Congress ( the last 6 years of the Clinton administration ).

    The Senate has yet to produce a plan, wonder why? The president talks about his plan but has not yet produced the plan. Just wondering when Aug 2nd comes ,what will the Senate and the President do ?
    Will 2/3s of our government allow a US government default ?

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The republican House is posturing.. because the bill passed by the House will never get out of the Senate, much less get vetoed. The teabaggers believe they can ALONE take over the Senate, even thought they don't have a majority, and they demand the unconditional surrender of the president.

      They think they can do this because they have a gun at the head of the national economy. This is blackmail, extortion and terrorism wrapped up in the American flag. Compromise is how things get done in a democracy. In 2012, it's going to be well past time to send these lunatics home.

      1. cindi h profile image61
        cindi hposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to ratify! Why? Because the people demanded it!! Of the 27 amendments to the constitution, 7 took 1 year or less to become law--all because of public pressure.

        The people should demand the following:

        1. NO TENURE /  NO PENSION. A CONGRESSMAN COLLECTS A SALARY WHILE IN OFFICE AND RECEIVES NO PAY WHEN THEY ARE OUT OF OFFICE.

        2. CONGRESS (PAST PRESENT & FUTURE) PARTICIPATES IN SOCIAL SECURITY. ALL FUNDS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RETIREMENT FUND SHOULD MOVE TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IMMEDIATELY. ALL FUTURE FUNDS FLOW INTO THE SS SYSTEM AND CONGRESS PARTICIPATES WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IT MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.

        3. CONGRESS CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN RETIREMENT PLAN, JUST AS ALL AMERICANS DO.

        4. CONGRESS CAN NO LONGER VOTE THEMSELVES A PAY RAISE. CONGRESSIONAL PAY WILL RISE BY THE POWER OF CPI OR 3%.

        5. CONGRESS LOSES THEIR CURRENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND PARTICIPATES IN THE SAME HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

        6. CONGRESS MUST EQUALLY ABIDE BY ALL LAWS THEY IMPOSE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

        7. ALL CONTRACTS WITH PAST AND PRESENT CONGRESSMEN SHOULD BE VOIDED EFFECTIVE NOW. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID NOT MAKE THIS CONTRACT WITH CONGRESSMEN, THEY INSTITUTED THESE CONTRACTS FOR THEMSELVES. SERVING IN CONGRESS SHOULD BE AN HONOR, NOT A CAREER.

        AND FINALLY,  OUR DEBT MONEY SYSTEM NEEDS TO CHANGE. MONEY IS CREATED THROUGH DEBT. KEEPING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN DEBT IS WHAT CREATES MONEY.

        PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS SYSTEM. IT IS MIND BOGGLING!!!!

        HOW MANY OF YOU KNOW HOW OUR MONETARY SYSTEM WORKS???  IT'S WORTH IT TO FIND OUT!!

      2. JON EWALL profile image46
        JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Doug Hughes

        ‘’The teabaggers believe they can ALONE take over the Senate, even thought they don't have a majority,‘’
        Senator Reid has been the majority leader in the majority Democrat Senate since 2007. Today President Barak Obama held a meeting this morning again behind closed doors with  Senator Reid and Senator Durbin. The Senate has the ball now and needs to put the House bill on the floor or present the Senate’s plan for debate and /or reject the House’s Cut, Cap and Balance bill. The President’s press spokesman admitted that  President Obama hasn’t a plan. After months of closed door sessions with both parties ,the President is awol now.

        There are 100 senators waiting, waiting for Senator Reid to do something. It’s his move now that the Republican House has come up with an approved bill. Democracy needs to be in action and not sitting on the sidelines .The President was excited over a plan by 6 senators, hardly a forum or majority.

        ‘’they have a gun at the head of the national economy. This is blackmail, extortion and terrorism wrapped up in the American flag. Compromise is how things get done in a democracy.’’
        REALLY, they ( the REPUBLICAN HOUSE ) have just taken action when the Senate and President Barak Obama  DO NOTHING but avoid a catastrophe. ALL TALK AND NO ACTION FROM THE SENATE AND THE WHITEHOUSE.
        AUG 2ND will be here shortly! Just wondering who will get the blame?

        1. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jon -

          "1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."

          All your posts for the last week have screamed a basic falsehood - namely that the White House and/ or Senate are not doing what the Constitution identifies as the job of the House.

          The voters will sweep the Teabaggers out of the House like they are flushing a toilet and by 2014 no respectable conservative will associate with those idiot tools of the rich.

  20. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    It has nothing to do with swag.
    It's the times we are living in, and an intuition on my part.
    It's the same intuition that told me Bushco had a hand in 9/11.
    It's just something I "know".

    I don't expect anyone to care, or to understand....I've been ridiculed for 10 years!
    Doesn't bother me in the least.....you get immune to it. And I'm only speaking my own truth.

    As one voice in a world full of voices.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      IT has EVERYTHING to do with Swag. That and the fact that his political party starts with a D.

      The list I posted earlier remains: Gitmo, the wars, the expanded wars, patriot act, etc etc.

      The man is worse than Bush, but he "looks cool", so the public be drippin' *inappropriate reference to a new Beyonce song about swag*

 
working