Interesting take from Huff Post
I find this interesting, just heard a writer from Huff Post say that this was going to be discussed as part of the debt limit debate. I wonder what this might mean, I mean these documents are so vague. The U.S. Constitution is well known for being written in a specifically vague manner. I mean it seems clear to be clear to me, but I'm just a simpleton.
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14-4. 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.
If the Bill in question, concerning the debt limit of the nation has been raised numerous times previously, then precedent says it is an acceptable part of legislation. Boy it would be nice if I was more well read.
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14-4. 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.
If the Bill in question, concerning the debt limit of the nation has been raised numerous times previously, then precedent says it is an acceptable part of legislation. Boy it would be nice if I was more well read.
Powered by ScribeFire.
posted by Noah at 10:13 PM
0 comments
