Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY Unconstitutional

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY Unconstitutional

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY Unconstitutional

Page: [1]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY Uncon... - 5/8/2023 7:35:57 PM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

I have been saying this for years. The entire "Debt Ceiling DIsapproval Process" outlined in Section 301 is so obviously unconstituional. I am shocked that no one ever took it to the Supreme Court. People pther than myself are finally saying it.

Section 4 of the 14th Ammendment clearly says:
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.

"SHA:LL NOT BE QUESTIONED"

Nothing could be more definitive of QUESTIONING the validity of the public debt than a Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process.

It is a very clearly unconstituional law that needs to be repealed immediately.

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/8/2023 9:18:10 PM

Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

Raising the debt ceiling isn't about paying debts or obligations, it's about creating NEW debt

Leftists want a censorship king who can spend more money on "green" boondoggles for their investor friends with the wave of a hand than has ever existed on all of the Earth

Then they pretend that the cause of Bidennflation is a mystery

And if trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars isn't enough to pay the interest on the debt, maybe creating more debt isn't the greatest idea you ever had

It's all about intentionally destroying America. That's literally the plan.

< Message edited by BoscoX -- 5/8/2023 9:30:10 PM >

_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/8/2023 9:33:21 PM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Raising the debt ceiling isn't about paying debts or obligations, it's about creating NEW debt

That is 100% wrong. You could not be more wrong than that statement. It is about as wrong as possible.

You are confusing actual public debt with legislative spending.

The debt ceiling is about the ability of the US Treasury to borrow more money to pay the bills it ALREADY has.

I think the problem is most of the low informations misunderstand this issue as you do.

(in reply to BoscoX)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/8/2023 10:58:37 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Ok, so VISA has given us a credit card, which we maxed out. But we have to pay what we've spent, PLUS the interest owed now. Pretty much exactly like we agreed to do when we applied for that credit card in the first place.

Raising the debt limit just lets us pay the interest owed on what we've had to borrow for the budget.

We still get to have the budget fight for next year, but this year's fight was already done, last year.

The GOP is acting like the Dems found some cute shoes on sale or some shit.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/9/2023 6:19:56 AM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Ok, so VISA has given us a credit card, which we maxed out. But we have to pay what we've spent, PLUS the interest owed now. Pretty much exactly like we agreed to do when we applied for that credit card in the first place.

Raising the debt limit just lets us pay the interest owed on what we've had to borrow for the budget.

We still get to have the budget fight for next year, but this year's fight was already done, last year.

The GOP is acting like the Dems found some cute shoes on sale or some shit.

The maxed out VISA card is a great metaphor.

Unfortunately, my good friend BoscoX is under the erroneous impression that the debt ceiling is not about paying the bills from charges on the already maxed out credit card, but rather new legislation committing future spending.

This is a common misunderstanding among right wing news consumers. By design.

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/9/2023 11:26:55 PM

Posts: 10663
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Raising the debt ceiling isn't about paying debts or obligations, it's about creating NEW debt

That is 100% wrong. You could not be more wrong than that statement. It is about as wrong as possible.

You are confusing actual public debt with legislative spending.

The debt ceiling is about the ability of the US Treasury to borrow more money to pay the bills it ALREADY has.

I think the problem is most of the low informations misunderstand this issue as you do.

"No new debt" the cult members scream

Meanwhile in the real world....

quote:

‘Over Our Dead Bodies’: Backlash Builds Against $3 Trillion Clean-Energy Push

Ballooning size of wind and solar projects draws local ire as they march closer to populated areas

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-reduction-act-backlash-clean-energy-wind-solar-f3d4d900

One example of billions. New debts as far as the eye can see

_____________________________

Hunter is the smartest guy I know

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/10/2023 6:10:56 AM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Raising the debt ceiling isn't about paying debts or obligations, it's about creating NEW debt

That is 100% wrong. You could not be more wrong than that statement. It is about as wrong as possible.

You are confusing actual public debt with legislative spending.

The debt ceiling is about the ability of the US Treasury to borrow more money to pay the bills it ALREADY has.

I think the problem is most of the low informations misunderstand this issue as you do.

"No new debt" the cult members scream

Meanwhile in the real world....

quote:

‘Over Our Dead Bodies’: Backlash Builds Against $3 Trillion Clean-Energy Push

Ballooning size of wind and solar projects draws local ire as they march closer to populated areas

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-reduction-act-backlash-clean-energy-wind-solar-f3d4d900

One example of billions. New debts as far as the eye can see

I have not researched this issue well enough to know whether or not this investment is a good idea.

If you want to start a thread on it, we can debate it. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

However, this thread is about the constitutionality (Or complete lack thereof) of Section 301 of the Budget Control Act.

(in reply to BoscoX)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/10/2023 6:20:01 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Biden seems to think the 14th Amendment may help? It would go to the courts, probably, so might not help in time.

This is the problem though. When something is unconstitutional, the other party needs to take it to court immediately, not just wait for it to be a problem. that's why we have a damn Constitution in the first place.

< Message edited by JVoV -- 5/10/2023 6:26:57 AM >

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/10/2023 7:01:32 AM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Biden seems to think the 14th Amendment may help? It would go to the courts, probably, so might not help in time.

This is the problem though. When something is unconstitutional, the other party needs to take it to court immediately, not just wait for it to be a problem. that's why we have a damn Constitution in the first place.

That is my point. It should have been challenged the day it was passed.

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/10/2023 9:46:31 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Well, it wasn't. So now we're here again. This government shutdown thing is dangerous, and the House knows it. Maybe that's their point though...

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/10/2023 7:12:58 PM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Well, it wasn't. So now we're here again. This government shutdown thing is dangerous, and the House knows it. Maybe that's their point though...

Someone needs to challenge this law in the Supreme Court, and get it struck down immediately. With a Republican President, Democrats and Republicans vote together to raise the debt ceiling. If a Democrat is President, these same Republicans are all of a sudden concerned about spending, and fail to tell their lemming supporters that the debt ceiling is about debt mostly racked up by the previous Republican President, so all the low information voters who don't understand how the debt ceiling works will support them. Of course there threats of shutting down the government tank the economy, which they want to happen so they can blame the Democratic President.

< Message edited by MasterJaguar01 -- 5/10/2023 7:14:32 PM >

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/12/2023 5:55:06 PM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Well, it wasn't. So now we're here again. This government shutdown thing is dangerous, and the House knows it. Maybe that's their point though...

The deadline is approaching. We shall see what happens. I hope Biden tells McCarthy to fuck off and directs the treasury to pay our bills.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/13/2023 9:32:04 AM

RealDominantLover

Posts: 28
Joined: 2/28/2023
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Raising the debt ceiling isn't about paying debts or obligations, it's about creating NEW debt

Leftists want a censorship king who can spend more money on "green" boondoggles for their investor friends with the wave of a hand than has ever existed on all of the Earth

Then they pretend that the cause of Bidennflation is a mystery

And if trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars isn't enough to pay the interest on the debt, maybe creating more debt isn't the greatest idea you ever had

It's all about intentionally destroying America. That's literally the plan.

And here I thought nobody could be that obtuse. Partisanship reveals one's knowledge or...lack of it.

Inflation is no mystery to a non-partisan when trump begged the Saudis [OPEC] to cut production and mainly so the Kochs could profit from their shitty, muddy, wretched oil pumped to Houston for export profits and IIRC...tax free profits.

(in reply to BoscoX)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/13/2023 10:36:55 AM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealDominantLover
when trump begged the Saudis [OPEC] to cut production

Please cite proof of this. I have never heard this before. I DO however have proof of Trump begging OPEC to INCREASE production.

(in reply to RealDominantLover)

RE: Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY U... - 5/13/2023 10:45:57 AM

Posts: 2323
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

If I were President at this moment, I would issue an Executive Order directing the Treasury to honor all US debt, and by any means available to them (e.g. Selling US Bonds, or other borrowing, etc.

I then would write a letter to Kevin McCarthy saying basically

"I will sit down with all interested parties to come up with a plan to properly manage our budget and at the same time spur growth.

I will not do it, while our full faith and credit is at risk. You can take your "debt ceiling" (run up by the President whose rectum your tongue is in) and put it in your own rectum. It is unconstitutional and a clear violation of Section 4 of the 14th amendment of the Constitution."

OK needs some wordsmithing.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Section 301 of the Buidget Control Act is CLEARLY Unconstitutional

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.039