Warning: Parameter 2 to SyndicationDataQueries::posts_search() expected to be a reference, value given in /home4/sattek/roguepolitics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298

Warning: Parameter 2 to SyndicationDataQueries::posts_where() expected to be a reference, value given in /home4/sattek/roguepolitics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298

Warning: Parameter 2 to SyndicationDataQueries::posts_fields() expected to be a reference, value given in /home4/sattek/roguepolitics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298

Warning: Parameter 2 to SyndicationDataQueries::posts_request() expected to be a reference, value given in /home4/sattek/roguepolitics.com/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 298
Fourteenth Amendment « Rogue Politics

Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Trump not a big fan of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

Civil asset forfeiture is the power of government to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved in, criminal activity based only on the suspicion of such activity, even before being charged or convicted of a crime. There is…

Read more →

Continue reading Trump not a big fan of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

. . . → Read More: Trump not a big fan of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

Trump campaign: Do we really need the Second Amendment?

The total disregard by liberals in both parties of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms has been on blatant display for years, but the intensity has picked up dramatically in the aftermath of the Orlando mass shooting by…

Read more →

Continue reading Trump campaign: Do we really need the Second Amendment?

. . . → Read More: Trump campaign: Do we really need the Second Amendment?

McConnell voiding the Constitution using Rahm Emanuel playbook

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff and the current mayor of what many consider the Murder Capitol of the U.S., once credited his success at getting unpopular legislation passed to his ability to take bad news and turn it…

Read more →

Continue reading McConnell voiding the Constitution using Rahm Emanuel playbook

. . . → Read More: McConnell voiding the Constitution using Rahm Emanuel playbook

McConnell voiding the Constitution using Rahm Emanuel playbook

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff and the current mayor of what many consider the Murder Capitol of the U.S., once credited his success at getting unpopular legislation passed to his ability to take bad news and turn it…

Read more →

Continue reading McConnell voiding the Constitution using Rahm Emanuel playbook

. . . → Read More: McConnell voiding the Constitution using Rahm Emanuel playbook

Liberals: Let’s void Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments so we can void Second

In the days following last weekend’s massacre in Orlando, Progressive Liberals (PL) have been working overtime to find new and creative ways to strip us of our constitutional right to own a gun. I intentionally used the words Progressive Liberal…

Read more →

Continue reading Liberals: Let’s void Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments so we can void Second

. . . → Read More: Liberals: Let’s void Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments so we can void Second

Can the U.S. President Unilaterally Raise the Debt Limit?

Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution give the president authority to order the Treasury Secretary to raise debt above the existing debt limit? I contend such authority does not exist, at least as of 2013.

In December 2012, Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, had “flatly renounced the 14th Amendment option, saying: ‘I can say that this administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling — period.’”[1]During October 2013, Wall Street, including investors and bank executives, was quietly coming to the opposite conclusion. Of course, fear of a declining stock market in the wake of a governmental default means that the financial sector has a strong financial interest in forestalling default by finding sufficient presidential authority in the Fourteenth Amendment.

   Are these Wall Street execs qualified, whether by virtue of their jobs or wealth, to advise the White House administration on matters of constitutional interpretation?   Image Source: Jason Reed/Reuters
“At the end of the day if there is no action and the United States has a default looming, I think President Obama can issue an executive order authorizing the Treasury secretary to make payments,” said David Kotok, chief investment officer of Cumberland Advisors. “There’s always been more flexibility in the hands of Treasury than they’ve acknowledged.”[2]Kotok could cite some lawyers teaching in American law schools who claimed that “the president could essentially ignore the debt limit imposed by Congress, because the 14th Amendment states that the ‘validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,’ including for debts like pensions and bounties to suppress insurrections, ‘shall not be questioned.’”[3]Authorized by law is the key to unpacking the fourth section of the amendment.

To proceed to the constitutional analysis, click on: “Can the President Unilaterally Raise the Debt-Ceiling?


1. Nelson D. Schwartz and Charlie Savage, “Wall St. Fears Go Beyond Shutdown,” The New York Times, October 2, 2013.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

. . . → Read More: Can the U.S. President Unilaterally Raise the Debt Limit? . . . → Read More: Can the U.S. President Unilaterally Raise the Debt Limit?

Supreme Court affirms Walker California marriage czar

U.S. Supreme Court standing rules allow Governor Brown to cede state power over Golden State marriage law to a single federal judge in defiance of the will of the California people. After rendering monumental states rights-deference under the Tenth Amendment in declaring the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act’s disparate treatment of couples lawfully married under state laws unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth | Read More » . . . → Read More: Supreme Court affirms Walker California marriage czar . . . → Read More: Supreme Court affirms Walker California marriage czar