WHAT? THE 13TH AMENDMENT SAYS YOU CAN’T MAKE ME WORK, RIGHT?
. 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
This is the section of the 14th Amendment that some airhead pundits and some airhead members of Congress are urging the President to cite as he issues an executive order to ‘raise the debt ceiling’. First of all, anybody who would seriously find an authorization for the President to do anything to the public debt of the US, except pay it, in the 14th Amendment, has no business talking or writing in public and is unfit to serve in the Congress of the United States, because he or she is not mentally competent to understand the oath of his or her office, which begs being able to read the Constitution.
But for those numbskulls who keep insisting on saying “the validity of the debt …..shall not be questioned” gives the President authorization to raise the debt limit, we ask this question: By how much? How much does the 14th Amendment say the President can raise the debt limit? Does the 14th say that the President can raise it enough to pay just the interest on the current debt, which when the celing is raised would automatically be more money? Plus pay the salaries of all federal employees – elected, appointed or contracted?. Plus buy oil for all the ships at sea and AvGas for all the Air Force planes and FlexFuel for the federal limo fleet? Plus figure in his own inflation cost and raise it that much for all the paper being put out by the USDA, the EPA, the DOE, the IRS?
Does the 14th Amendment say the President can raise the debt celing by .000236%, or 1.5% or 23 thousand dollars? Or is the 14th Amendment a blank check for the President?
What part of “authorized by law” do these drooling Democrats not understand?
And while we’re on the subject of Amendments, just how high does the First Amendment say the Wall of Separation between Church and State is? We constantly hear airhead pundits and airhead politicos and even airhead constitutional scholars say the First Amendment creates a “Wall of Separation”. We want to know the specifications of that wall. And if we get a smart-alec attorney on board to say the specifications are whatever a federal court says they are when some irritated atheist sues some decent, God-fearing public official, or football coach, we have three words in reply….ex post facto. If Congress didn’t pass a law, we sure as hell aren’t going to tolerate a judge passing one, now are we?
And finally, Alcohol and Tobacco are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and the infringement on their use or sale by private citizens residing in sovereign states and not engaged in interstate commerce is nowhere authorized to the federal government. And further, the infringement on the right to own and carry firearms is specifically banned to the federal government by the Second Amendment. So we would like to know how a “Bureau” can be set up within the federal government to investigate, regulate and police things that the federal government is not authorized, indeed sometimes specifically prohibited from sticking its nose into?
When the 113th Congress and the new Constitutionally Conservative administration come into office in 2013, and the US Government is thereafter downsized to the point of manageability, these and other constitutional issues, not the least of which is the odious size and overreach of the Federal Judiciary, are going to be front and center and there are either going to be some specific, concrete answers to questions like the ones we raise here today or a whole lot of people are going to have to find jobs in the private sector.