August 2nd crystal ball!

[fenderbass07]

See here:



This section of the 14th can be construed as follows if you really squint your eyes and dim the lights while reading it:

- If America defaults on our national debt, it would call into question the validity of our economy
- The president of the united states swore under oath to defend the constitution, including the 14th amendment
- Since the president swore to protect the constitution, and the 14th amendment, he therefore has to protect the public debt from questioning
- As it is up to him to put to rest any questions about the validity of our public debt, he has the power to raise the debt ceiling in order to put these questions to rest

It is total crap, and a gross misconstruing of the amendment as I read it, but hey he is the King right? he does what he wants. Just dont tell the King that a pesky fifth section exists in the amendnemt:



Oops!!

Now that I have some understanding it would seem to me that that pesky section 5 is what stands in his way. If he is "truly" out to protect the constitution then he therfore must protect section 5 of the 14th amendment as well and not pick and choose what he wants to follow.

 

[Stuckon22]

That's what I'm thinking. All presidents have people that look into the constitution to see if he can grab power anywhere he can in any situation. That's how it grew to be the monster of a position that it is. To me all of the real power in our government should lie with congress according to the constitution.

Checks and Balances are good for a republic.

 

[fenderbass07]

Checks and Balances are good for a republic.

No disagreement there. I'm just saying that the way that the constitution is set up the majority of the power belongs to congress. That's not to say that they can run wild with it. They still have to answer to someone too. Why would the founding fathers, who just escaped the rule of a king, place most of the power of the country with one man. They would give it to the branch of government that has a mix of people in it so all views, in theory, could be taken into account before a decision was reached. Now there are certian things that require one person to make a decision because having too many people involved only complicates the situation. Things like that are given to the POTUS to make but they are very few, but presidents in the past seem to have tried to go outside the original "idea" of what their job actually is to become the person that "rules" the US.

 

[Stuckon22]

No disagreement there. I'm just saying that the way that the constitution is set up the majority of the power belongs to congress. That's not to say that they can run wild with it. They still have to answer to someone too. Why would the founding fathers, who just escaped the rule of a king, place most of the power of the country with one man. They would give it to the branch of government that has a mix of people in it so all views, in theory, could be taken into account before a decision was reached. Now there are certian things that require one person to make a decision because having too many people involved only complicates the situation. Things like that are given to the POTUS to make but they are very few, but presidents in the past seem to have tried to go outside the original "idea" of what their job actually is to become the person that "rules" the US.

All true.