A Complete Waste of Space

CUDA wrote:The 14th is the equal protection clause. so I'm having a hard time understanding what it has to do with this issue. so correct me if I'm missing something

the pertinent words:
“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.”

Uh...not to be ugly....but, where does it say?
He can increase the debt?
Or is it?
It don't say he can't....
And that is in itself?
Means he can...

Old Pudfark sez: " No offense....but.....bull shit to that.... "

Pudfark wrote:Uh...not to be ugly....but, where does it say?
He can increase the debt?
Or is it?
It don't say he can't....
And that is in itself?
Means he can...

Old Pudfark sez: " No offense....but.....bull shit to that.... "

here, I'll cop out, as I'm no expert on Constitutional Law. All I know is this: the idea came up during
the last big debt ceiling brouhaha, over Iraq spending off the books. Where it gets tricky NOW if applied,
is separating out the debt due to war(the bit about pensions and expenses for quelling insurrections, etc,
seems to be the point of the wording, IMO). I'm not declaring it right, wrong, or whatever. Just that the
argument has been made before, never been settled to my knowledge. It certainly wouldn't be anything
impeachable whatsoever, that I can see.

Well if a city can do it

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/21/news/ec ... ney_latest

Nice find Fats...