An impeachable offense?

[quaoar]

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

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.

Bush and his minions are running around saying the Social Security Trust Fund, which is invested in Treasury securities, isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[Lone Pawn]

1. That's not actually what it means.

It's saying that "although we're not trying to demean the validity of the public debt, we're not going to honor any debts related to this whole slavery and rebellion business."

[quaoar]

2. No.

If they just wanted to invalidate slavery-related debts, they would not have needed the first sentence.

It is quite clear and forceful actually. The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.

[Lone Pawn]

3. The word "but" is the key clue there.

If it were as you read it, that would not be required. The writers of this amendment obviously were addressing potential concerns about using this amendment to create a precendent of denying public debt. To avoid that, they clarified that the public debt is still to be considered valid.

Certainly the best you could hope for in a Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the passage is that the remark is ambiguous, in which case you could not impeach anyway.

[quaoar]

4. They were carving out an exception

They first reassert that the public debt is not to be questioned --- and then exempt debts involving slavery.

By making an exception, the amendment precludes invalidating any other debts other than those involving slavery.

[Lone Pawn]

5. Let's go through this.

Re-assert. When was that first asserted? Never mind, it's a useless question.

Nonetheless, it's obvious we're at an impasse. I have one actual question for you, though. Suppose we're arguing this in front of the Supreme Court when the motion to impeach is challenged. Say for kicks that I'm the Republican and you're the Democrat. I give my reading, you give yours. In order to gain the go-ahead for impeachment, you need to conclusively prove that there is no ambiguity in the document--that is to say, you need to prove that there is no Earthly way that my reading could possibly be correct.

I present as evidence the long American history of full free speech, and point that every reading that ever allowed restrictions of speech--and all Bush has done is speak--has been later invalidated. I mention that the Constitution has at its healthiest been read as a document in which an individual is granted every freedom that could be read from it, and in a case in where two readings--both equally possible--exist, one forbidding a citizen the right to speak against the validity of debt and one still alowing him that right, it makes more sense to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I next mention that in every case in which the Constitution restricts, it either specifically forbids the federal government from passing such-and-such a law, or mentions that such-and-such a thing would now be permissible or forbidden, and congress has right to pass a law forbidding it. Since it nowhere mentions any branch of office disallowed from officially questioning debt, it can only be assumed under your reading that debt is not to be questioned by any citizen. However, since it does not warrant Congress the ability to enforce it, it would then be a meaningless proviso. It doesn't square. Moreover, were it to allow Congress to enforce this provision, it would conflict with the First Amendment, ambiguity would exist, and prosecution would not follow.

Moreover, if there is no federal law against a President's action, but it is not within the bounds of the Constitution, the action which is then taken is an order from the court to cease and desist, and reverse the action if at all possible. If he fails to comply with a court order, then he is breaking the law and can be impeached. No law has yet been broken, and so this impeachment motion is invalid.

[quaoar]

7. It was first asserted in the Constitution

when the debts incurred under the Articles of Confederation were said to be valid under the new Constitution.

We would not be arguing a motion to impeach before the Supreme Court because that function is entirely up to the House of Representatives. The Republican House, of course, would not impeach Bush unless it was something pretty horrible and outrageous, but the Supreme Court has nothing to do with impeachment. The only role for the court is for the chief justice to preside over a Senate trial.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. Presidents can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," with the definition of that left up to the House. Cease and desist orders are issued for all manner of violations of civil law.

[Lone Pawn]

9. We would have to argue before the Supreme Court in this case, certainly.

The motion to impeach would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional, as no crime was violated.

[forgethell]

6. Oh, that's ridiculous.

It means that the debts will be honored. That's not quite the same thing as questioning whether current resources are adequate to pay the debt, as currently structured. That's a First Amendment issue.

Nearing retirement age, myself, I am not anxious for SS to be tampered with. I do not like Bush. But this thread is going to cause a lot of asses to be laughed off at FR, if they ever find it out.

We need to get rooted in reality, not wild fantasies. And anyway, even if you were right, the Republican Congress is not going to impeach Bush

x(

[Padraig18]

8. "Impeachable offense" is whatever the majority says it is.

This is a non-starter.

Next!