Yeah, that was a clever/nasty piece of parliamentary work. It's laughable, you've got people pissy all over the Senate about the possibility of a restricted use of the filibuster, calling it "the nuclear option", that would (in the most extreme case), make it so that a simple majority rules on an issue. And then you get shit like this in the House, where they can modify parliamentary rules to take away the existing rights of 434 of the 435 members, even if every single one of them was in favor of something. Chutzpah, that is indeed.
Judah On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Zaphod <[email protected]> wrote: > > I saw this video yesterday and thought it was pretty interesting given the > current battle in the house. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A&app=desktop > > It seems that the republicans were changing the rules to make sure the > budget had no chance of passing. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Well, Justin, here is the theory as I understand it in all its odious > glory. > > > > The 14th Amendment prohibits default, basically. Here is the relevant > text: > > > > *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. 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. > > > > So Gohmert, and others, argue that in the current battle, Obama is > choosing > > to not pay the public debt of the United States. They say that with that > > even if Congress does not raise the debt limit or start funding the > > government again, Obama could still choose to take tax receipts and pay > > interest on public debt and, instead, not pay for other things, like > Social > > Security, government salaries, etc. And that if the Treasury missed a > debt > > interest payment, regardless of reason, that would put the Executive in > > violation of the 14th Amendment and therefore it would be an impeachable > > crime. > > > > Now, I think that by that twisted interpretation, we could just as easily > > say that we are stopping all payments to Rep. Gohmert's home state of > Texas > > because they are clearly engaged in an insurrection against the United > > States. But crazy isn't going to understand. > > > > Judah > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Justin Scott <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >>> The dailycurrant.com article is satire. > >> > >> Indeed, the people who were sanding on an overpass on I-75 with a > >> giant "impeach Obama" banner last Friday at rush hour were pretty real > >> though. Big difference between a few people on an overpass and > >> Congress going that route though. To all of those people who wish to > >> impeach Obama, I would ask what crime, specifically, they would charge > >> him with and what evidence would they bring if they were prosecuting > >> that crime? > >> > >> > >> -Justin > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:367803 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
