Trillion Dollar Coin?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
you know Ethically, Morally....ect

Basically what im trying to say its an unethical idea that is entirely, at its very core, the plan is the opposite of something that you would expect in a country founded in democracy.

Do you perhaps think that "unconstitutional" is a mere synonym of "bad"?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
not in the least.

Im interrupting like this....

America is a Democracy and the Constitution is what ensures this. Manipulating the law in a way to get what you want just because its possible you wont get it a different why flys in the face of this entirely.

I guess I should have said "in spirit it is unconstitutional" instead of ethically though.

(Quote from the OP article)

Originally posted by Robtard
"The pessimistic view is that markets might indeed freak out. The coin might be a sign that the U.S. government has become even more dysfunctional than anyone thought."

That, more than anything, is the problem, our denial of our crushing debt. When (not "if"😉 interest rates go up, this will all come crashing down. The emperor does have clothes, but he left them hanging in his closet made of smoke and mirrors.

Interest rates near 0% and the US dollar being the world's reserve currency are the keystones at the base of this house of cards. Think Greece times trillions. And when we fall (some say we're already falling), other constitutional democracies will fall like a house of cards, including Sweden.

"...and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”--Ben Franklin

"But here, ah painful thought, the fair cause of freedom rose and fell." --Thomas Paine

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you perhaps think that "unconstitutional" is a mere synonym of "bad"?

Unconstitutional is a synonym for without law. The Left declares the Constitution to be a "living document", not amendable according to law, but rather by whim; rationalized by the all is subjective worldview where power determines who is favored by a legal double standard.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Im interrupting like this....

America is a Democracy and the Constitution is what ensures this. Manipulating the law in a way to get what you want just because its possible you wont get it a different why flys in the face of this entirely.

I guess I should have said "in spirit it is unconstitutional" instead of ethically though.

For about seventy years the Constitution protected slavery, so how pure and immutable is this purported spirit?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is this against the spirit of the Constitution though?

For about seventy years the Constitution protected slavery, so how pure and immutable is this purported spirit?

Slavery was corrected. But you have a point, no legal framework will stand up to the corruption of the people. And when that happens, the people will not be able to stand up to the corruption of the government they sold out to.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Im interrupting like this....

America is a Democracy and the Constitution is what ensures this. Manipulating the law in a way to get what you want just because its possible you wont get it a different why flys in the face of this entirely.

I guess I should have said "in spirit it is unconstitutional" instead of ethically though.

But, as far as I understand the constitution, it is the courts that decide what is in the spirit of it...not you. Obviously there's many different interpretations of what the intentions of the constitution are (especially since it's drafters were of such different political opinions in their time as well).

However that's sort of the thing, this political games being played, especially things like constant filibusters, may be stupid, immoral and should not be allowed, but it is not really against the constitution, whether it is in spirit, is very much up to interpretation. But even then, even if something is "against the spirit of the constitution" it is not "unconstitutional" in fact the problem, at least if you are against it, is that it is constitutional.

Originally posted by ThePainefulTrut
Unconstitutional is a synonym for without law. The Left declares the Constitution to be a "living document", not amendable according to law, but rather by whim; rationalized by the all is subjective worldview where power determines who is favored by a legal double standard.

I don't think that's a trait exclusive to the left.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is this against the spirit of the Constitution though?

For about seventy years the Constitution protected slavery, so how pure and immutable is this purported spirit?

But when the constitution is updated its typically for the better. Change is the only constant in life and we are slowly trying to change for the better.

Anyways I am all for change for the better but I don't think coming up with an idea that could potentially harm America as a whole is change for the better. This idea is just so one political side can tell the other "let us have what we want.....vote our way or we will do this". Thats not a democracy....thats an ultimatum.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But, as far as I understand the constitution, it is the courts that decide what is in the spirit of it...not you. Obviously there's many different interpretations of what the intentions of the constitution are (especially since it's drafters were of such different political opinions in their time as well).

However that's sort of the thing, this political games being played, especially things like constant filibusters, may be stupid, immoral and should not be allowed, but it is not really against the constitution, whether it is in spirit, is very much up to interpretation. But even then, even if something is "against the spirit of the constitution" it is not "unconstitutional" in fact the problem, at least if you are against it, is that it is constitutional.

And I don't disagree.

It's hard for me to explain what I mean I guess. Its not something im saying "is" against the constitution but breaks the spirit in which it was created. Kind of like if your split screening CoD and you watch the other guys half screen to find them and kill them. Sure it doesn't actually break the rules but it sure as heck isn't intended either.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
But when the constitution is updated its typically for the better. Change is the only constant in life and we are slowly trying to change for the better.

Anyways I am all for change for the better but I don't think coming up with an idea that could potentially harm America as a whole is change for the better. This idea is just so one political side can tell the other "let us have what we want.....vote our way or we will do this". Thats not a democracy....thats an ultimatum.

This wouldn't be a change to the Constitution though--it's not even passing a new law, so I fail to see how it's Unconstitutional. What you're basically saying is that it's "unfair" or "underhanded" and trying to make it sound more perfidious by casting the shade of unconstitutionality over it.

And it's not as if the Republicans are faultless here, this whole coin business is just a response to what Republicans have threatened to do, namely to stall out the talks until we're in crisis and the Democrats will be forced to cut spending by necessity.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This wouldn't be a change to the Constitution though--it's not even passing a new law, so I fail to see how it's Unconstitutional. What you're basically saying is that it's "unfair" or "underhanded" and trying to make it sound more perfidious by casting the shade of unconstitutionality over it.

And it's not as if the Republicans are faultless here, this whole coin business is just a response to what Republicans have threatened to do, namely to stall out the talks until we're in crisis and the Democrats will be forced to cut spending by necessity.

So your saying its not unconstitutional unless your trying to pass it as law?

And if that where topic of discussion I would think the same thing about that as well.

Read what I wrote to Bardock. Maybe that gives a better understanding of my point of view.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
So your saying its not unconstitutional unless your trying to pass it as law?

No he's saying its not unconstitutional unless its actually unconstitutional. Things done by politicians you dislike can be bad, unethical, and immoral without being unconstitutional.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
So your saying its not unconstitutional unless your trying to pass it as law?

And if that where topic of discussion I would think the same thing about that as well.

Read what I wrote to Bardock. Maybe that gives a better understanding of my point of view.

I did read what you wrote to Bardock--it's what convinced me that when you say "unconstitutional" you mean it in the way someone might say "that's cheating" or "that's unfair" in an FPS due to another player's conduct. It doesn't mean they were actually cheating or manipulating the game mechanics somehow, it just means that you think what they did was unsporting, and that you disapprove of it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A law can be unconstitutional if it contains provisions that conflict with the word of the Constitution. An action may also be unconstitutional (e.g. many would say (and do) that the President going to war without a declaration from Congress is unconstitutional), but for that to be the case there needs to be an actual conflict between the action and some part of the constitution. From the sound of it, the whole reason this coin is being considered is because it isn't forbidden by any law.

I did read what you wrote to Bardock--it's what convinced me that when you say "unconstitutional" you mean it in the way someone might say "that's cheating" or "that's unfair" in an FPS due to another player's conduct. It doesn't mean they were actually cheating or manipulating the game mechanics somehow, it just means that you think what they did was unsporting, and that you disapprove of it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Doesn't the nature of a law depend upon my personal approval of it? Am I not the holder of truths and master of common sense?

The platinum coin is now a moot point. Less idiotic minds in the Democrat party have held sway and the issue is tabled--which doesn't mean it won't come up again. In fact it almost certainly will resurface in some form or other once we've become numb to this particularly moronic idea. Whaddoya think's been happening for the last 80 years anyway? 💃

To be fair, the only reason they had to consider that is because the Republicans decided to not pay for what they agreed to spend.

Noo, it's because Obama's a socialist marxist who loves nazis.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But, as far as I understand the constitution, it is the courts that decide what is in the spirit of it...not you.

Directly, yes, indirectly, no. We vote on the people that vote on which of those judges go into office. The president selects and the senate approves the Justices.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Obviously there's many different interpretations of what the intentions of the constitution are (especially since it's drafters were of such different political opinions in their time as well).

I would wager that some of those differences would appear to be very small to our political eyes, these days.

Originally posted by BackFire
Noo, it's because Obama's a socialist marxist who loves nazis.

lol, "Vorwärts!"