|
willbeurdaddy -> RE: Does reducing social security violate the US Constitution? (7/21/2011 7:05:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
No, the clause enables the payment of pensions to Union soldiers without similar compensation to the Confederate soldiers, and the general debt clause was actually intended to preempt paying Confederate war debts. It was not intended as an overall debt clause. The pension clause has nothing to do with Social Security or non-military pensions.
Once again...not even a nice try. Amazing to actually suggest a constitutional amend. as the law of the land was so specifically narrow as union or confed. debts. What a hoot. BTW, what 'general debt clause ?'
You site nothing to back all of this up...it is merely your partisan opinion. One could just as easily submit that it means the opposite.
Besides, the question is mute. The federal courts have ruled the govt. could just keep it all and pay out nothing...NOTHING at all...no soc. sec., no medicare, no federal pensions, no military pensions.
Wow. Did you take stupid pills or what?
First of all, your last sentence is irrelevant, because weve already said that what youve named arent "debts". A total non sequiter.
Second, the word is MOOT, idiot.
Third, did you ever read a fucking thing about the Civil War and reparations? No back up? A fucking high school history student knows what the 14th says.
"The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War. Many southern leaders considered it a double humiliation to have been defeated by the Yankees and then to have to pay taxes to repay the loans which were used to defeat them, and the 14th was intended to stop Southern states, once they had integrated back into the union, from using their political clout to make the U.S. default on its Civil War debt.
The framers of the 14th Amendment also wanted to address the related issue of Union soldiers’ military pensions, which were also a kind of war debt. The amendment made clear that the North would honor the legitimate war debts and pension obligations incurred to preserve the Union; however, they would not force the nation to honor the promises of the illegal Confederate governments, neither to foreign creditors nor to rebel soldiers."
http://blogs.forbes.com/jerrybowyer/2011/07/13/obama-and-his-slavish-14th-amendment-courtiers/
Or you can find the same thing on about 5000 other articles on the 14th.
|
|
|
|
