One could argue that if the leadership of the GOP fails to allow a vote on CR, as there seems to be enough Republican votes for its passage, and they willfully allow this country to default...bringing about financial chaos then they would be in violation of their oath of office. If they crash the economy then they could very well be bringing about bad times to equal 2008.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
What good is taking an oath to uphold the constitution while your intent is to ignore it for the sake of one's political party and their collective egos? Doing so will put them at odds with their constitutionally elected duties as stewards of the same constitution.
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/07/why-the-14th-amendment-matters-in-the-debt-ceiling-crisis/
Though triggered by specific threats the country faced in the aftermath of the Civil War, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment remains relevant to our world. Yale's Balkin explained on his Balkinization blog in June 2011: "Section 4 targets the worry that, once fully readmitted to the Union, senators and representatives from Southern states ... would deliberately refuse to repay debts incurred in suppressing the confederate rebellion." Still, he continued, the provision "was stated in broad terms in order to prevent future majorities in Congress from repudiating the federal debt to gain political advantage, to seek political revenge, or to try to disavow previous financial obligations because of changed policy priorities."
The inevitable crisis arises because the President has a Constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws ... be faithfully executed," which means spending money at the levels Congress has mandated. Yet his only source of funds with which to do so are the revenues Congress permits him to raise via taxes or the funds it permits him to borrow by issuing public debt. (The Constitution gives Congress control over all three functions: spending, taxation, and borrowing.) If the President fails to come up with the requisite money to spend, he'll default on the public debt in violation of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.
But the bigger point is this: Section 4 of the 14th Amendment exists, and it is all about trying to ban precisely what's going on right now. The only question is how it applies. And even that uncertainty tells us something very important about the gravity of the crisis we are facing today. The reason we have so few precedents to guide us in applying Section 4 is that, by and large, the provision comes into play only when a critical mass of members of Congress are willing to see grievous harm come to our nation if their demands aren't met -- demands that cannot be achieved through ordinary democratic processes. That's a situation that we really haven't faced since Civil War Reconstruction, when formerly hostile, armed insurgents were being reintegrated into the Union and, therefore, into Congress.
The President is not the only one who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Members of Congress, too, have an obligation to support and defend it -- including Section 4. The House members currently using the prospect of debt-default as a bargaining chip -- whether to delay implementation of the Affordable Care Act or to achieve any other goal -- are betraying the Constitution, and the President is correct to draw a line in the sand and refuse to legitimize this abuse or incentivize its recurrence. He deserves immediate, full-throated, bipartisan support for putting an end to this constitutionally forbidden tactic once and for all.
Sorry for the info dump, and it is CNN, but I thought it was relevant.
The last paragraph says the most, but the previous ones give context.
So how would I draw up a warrant? I wouldn't. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure if a default happens there will be plenty of lawyers that would consider giving it a shot; especially if they lose their shirts in a heavy economic downturn.
TY about the screen name.
= new reply since forum marked as read
