Four Questions For Obama's 14th Amendment Supporters

Bill Clinton recently revealed that if he were in office now that he would “without hesitation” use the 14th Amendment to justify ignoring the congressional debt limit. He was less clear about whether he thought it was constitutional, claiming that he would force the courts to rule on the issue. Here’s how the former president framed his argument:

“I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy… [Lifting the debt ceiling] is necessary to pay for appropriations already made.”

This idea is the latest mutation of the outbreak of Presidential Gigantism that has afflicted the American left. The vaccine is found in Article 1 of the Constitution.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States…”

If the decision to add something to the budget in order to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” automatically includes borrowing money to do it, then why are they separate in the text of the constitution? Why is spending in section 7, but borrowing and taxing in section 8? For that matter why is borrowing separated from taxing power if it’s all automatically included? Why does the text of the Constitution explicitly distinguish between taxes imposed “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare”?

Mr. Former President, does it depend on what your definition of “and” is?

The constitutional deliberations handled spending and borrowing as distinct topics. The Federalist papers written to promote ratification also made that distinction. Neither of those facts make any sense if Clinton is right and spending and borrowing and taxing all amount to one congressional power.

Appropriations and borrowing are separate powers, require separate votes, and the reason no president before asserted that he had the right to borrow as much as he wanted against the explicit legal limit of congress is because both powers, appropriations and borrowing, are explicitly given to the Congress, not to the president.

Why not use asset sales to service the nation’s debt?

When developing countries run into debt crises, we in the developed world advise them, sometimes directly and sometimes through international agencies such as the IMF, to sell assets. Now that we’re acting like a developing country why don’t we follow our own advice?

It’s hard enough to argue with a straight face that the Constitution not only requires us to pay our debts (which it does), but that it further compels us to pay old debts with new debts. It’s even harder to argue that point when we are sitting on trillions of dollars in assets.

Bruce Bartlett suggests a complex and deceitful financial transaction in which the Treasury department “sells” its $300 billion gold reserve to the Fed for a specified period of time to raise money, with the understanding that when the debt ceiling is raised, the Treasury will buy it back from the Fed. How is this not a loan from the Fed the Treasury? If it’s a loan it violates the debt ceiling law. But hey, it reminds us all that the government is sitting on $300 billion in gold. Forget the Enron-type non-debt-but-really-debt transaction — just sell the Gold!

Do we really need to be gold and oil investors? Which reminds me, what about the roughly one trillion dollars worth of oil we have in reserve? Instead of using it to manipulate energy prices, why don’t we just get out of the oil storage business and use the proceeds to service the debt for a couple of years?

There is a huge, unspoken and inaccurate assumption behind the 14er case, namely that the constitutional mandate to pay our debts implies doing it with additional debt.  Yes, the Constitution says we have to pay it. But the Constitution does not say to pay it with further borrowing. It leaves the decision whether to use further borrowing, cost-cutting or new taxes to pay it clearly in the hands of the legislative branch.

If the 14th Amendment transfers debt power from the congress to the president, then why doesn’t it mention the president, and why does it explicitly mention congress?

The locus classicus of Congressional jurisdiction over public debt is in Article 1, Section 8.  But is that jurisdiction rescinded in the 14th Amendment? No way. In fact it is even reiterated in the 14th Amendment – twice! If the presidential sycophants had bothered to read the section immediately following the section which they have been quoting, they would have seen this:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Obama’s knee-pad brigade never seems to quote that section. But even the section which they do quote makes the same point clear.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.”

In other words, the only debt protected by the 14th Amendment is the debt authorized by law, that is by the legislative branch.

If the framers of the 14th amendment somehow meant it to transfer borrowing authority from Congress to the President, why didn’t they say so in the ratification debates?

We have extensive records of the framing of the 13th and 14th Amendments (Raoul Berger’s book Government by Judiciary is the best treatment). But neither advocates of the amendment, nor opponents, said anything about a transfer of borrowing power to the executive branch. Given the fact that there was a very great concern about the growth of executive powers, especially among the confederates, the lack of evidence of any objections along these lines is very conspicuous.

If the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to amend Article 1, which gave that power to the congress, why did they not in the official text of the Constitution show it as an amendment to article 1?

The official text of the constitution notes the places in which amendments to the original text supersede it.  For example, the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery and the framers of that amendment went back to the sections that were amended and inserted parenthetical notices of the change.

They did so with all of the other sections of the 13th and 14th amendments, adding parenthetical statements to whichever earlier section of the constitution was being amended, but they made no such change to the Article 1 borrowing powers of the Congress. The reason they did not change the text is because they did not change the powers.

If the framers of the 14th amendment intended for it to imply further borrowing to pay the debt service, than why did they do the opposite in their own budgeting process?

The civil war deficits were proportionately roughly the same as ours are now, but instead of further borrowing, they cut spending drastically. Are the Huffington and Washington Posts better interpreters of this amendment than the men and women who wrote it? That generation dealt with a deficit which was roughly 10% of GDP, the same as ours.

But they dealt with the problem through extensive cost cutting, not through credit expansion. If we believe that they understood the intent of the law which they wrote better than we do, then we cannot seriously argue that they thought the 14th amendment specifically mandated debt expansion rather than other means such as cost reduction to deal with excessive debt.

The 14th amendment has been so horribly abused by Clinton, Bartlett and Company that one is tempted to visit the local magistrate and file for a PFA on behalf of the abused section. Justification? A history of textual violence. If the liberal establishment continues to promote this line of reasoning, and, God forbid, the Obama administration acts on it, the promulgators will be exposed for what they are: worshippers of power, abusers of liberty, oppressors of future generations.


Mr. Bowyer is the author of "The Free Market Capitalists Survival Guide," published by HarperCollins, and a columnist for



  • TaterSalad

    Subject: Obama's Utopia

    Barack Obama's hand-picked regime has 11 steps in bringing a total fascist, police state to the United States:

    "Everything Obama does comes straight from the most stilted and destructive clichés of the left. The man has never had an original idea in his life, and wouldn't recognize one if it were served up on a plate with arugula. He is intellectually locked in concrete."

    • reginald zenkewich

      I have just read through the 14th Amendment, and unless my copy has been outdated by a new revised addition, There is no wording that gives the Obamanation Socialist Party any rights to raise the debt or taxes without congress weighing the reason for such and voting on it. Something about this artical is a bit off key when it comes to the 14th Amendment?

    • dragonfFIRE01

      Isn't it funny that the only time this admin. pays attention to the Constitution is when it can be distored? or in other words FUBAR?

    • Los

      Pure poetry! And a bayonet in the heart accurate!

    • MarkBench

      Yes, that is what sock puppets do. They bob and nod, and speak words the puppeteers mouth. This man is not a president. He is an agent of a foreign enemy.

  • Washington76

    Ron Paul competitive against Obama in new poll. Obama 41%, Ron Paul 37% Friday, July 22, 2011

    "Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company." George Washington

  • Washington76

    Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions

  • Mary Gee

    Clinton who? impeach NOBAMA.

    • sid


  • sd winkler

    Notwithstanding all the questions raised above, raising the debt ceiling via the 14th amendment won't even work.

  • fmurray

    Pres Clinton said that if Congress authorized the spending, we have to borrow for it. But, it is entirely within the Congresses prerogative to defund programs, change or eliminate them. Also, since Obama, Pelosi and Reid never approved a budget for FY 09-11 and chose the continuing resolution method, the spending was never authorized.
    It baffles me to think they can increase spending by $1T in 1 year, but can't find anything to cut.

    • Randy G

      They al;ways find something to cut espescialy from people who can not afford it. How come they can cut what they put in their pockets?

    • sid

      they don't want to cut, their own supporters!!!

    • Robert McFarland

      If the Spending was never authorized, The Treasury would be breaking the Law by continueing to pay the military & send out SSI checks & feed Starving Somalians to the tune of $450 Million American TaxPayer Dollars!

    • fordman

      Clinton never was a good president and Obama is not one at all. He is the occupant of the white house.

  • Bryan

    When Bill Clinton was in office spending was 584 million a day. Under President Buch it was 1.6 billion. Obama 4.1 billion a DAY ! Someone needs to step on him.

    • ChuckL

      Bryan, You stated only recorded amounts. you made no allowance for inflation. But even inflation does not save BHO.

    • Ronald Christopher

      Do not forget that Clinton took the Social Security fund out of the "lock box" and placed it in the General Fund thus creating a mind set that he only spent 584 million a day.

  • Sarah

    We need to stop this Admin NOW! We cannot afford another 17months of this spending. Where are all those in Washington who actually LOVE this Country and want to help the American people? Ron and Rand Paul are the only two that I can see!

    • carol

      Sarah, include Congressman Allen West and Senator Marco Rubio. There are a few more but we need to Vet them and keep them accountable

  • Okieboy

    Slick Willie, now that he is not President, says it is ok to ignore the wording of the 14th amendment. It says THE CONGRESS not the president SHALL HAVE THE POWER. I served this country for 12 years. PROTECT AND DEFEND the constitution was in my oath. It was in William "Slick Willies" Clintons' oath as well.

    • ChuckL

      And those oaths have no expiration time limit.

    • wasadoc

      But he was too busy with Monica, don'tcha know---

  • Leonard W.

    The is only one solution, keep rid of this disgraceful, poor excuse of a human being, impeach him. He has broken enough laws to have any president impeach. They tried to impeach Bubba for getting his weeny washed. I know, the blacks would have cows. To h## with them, they have had their shot at the white house, they chose to put a Chi Town gangster in there and he cold not run a lemon stand. It is sad that the first person of color in the white house is nothing more than a dressed up street corner con artist. This man has set us back to the 50s where it was said that the negro should stay in his place, in bib overalls, bro gangs, and behind old Jake. This man is close to proving them right, but I know better, we have less educated Negros among us that would run circles around this man when it comes to being the head of any nation. White folk, you had better realize, there are many Negros that feel like I do, and forget get that no justice no peace crap, and band together to save our nation from the two m"s Mexicans and Muslims. He is a bonnofied muslim and all others are his stepping stone to put sharia law in this country. The gays are number one. We all know that the Muslims hate gays and will send them to hell in a heart beat. All of their dancing necked, and celebrating gay pride, will be silenced, they will have to go back in the closet. Eric Holder said " My only concern in protecting the Muslim people" For all you people that though he was talking about the Negro when he said "My people" guess again. Wake up my people, you have bought a pig in a blanket, it is time to fess up and join the rest of us true Americans and get our nation back. Trust me, you are no going to like the CHANGE this man had in mine. You had better read up on Islam, your life style does not mix with it.

    • Helen Baumgarten

      If the Congress would of done their job long time ago we wouldn't be in this position now. So get the job done that us Tax Payers are paying you to do and get him Impeached NOW!!!!!!!! Helen

  • skip

    this is in reference to "tatersalad" above... it's not directly related to the topic at hand, but, i think it's totally important that the general voting public and otherwise understand exactly where obama, and to some extent, hillary clinton, is coming from... if you agree, please do what you can to get the word out... thanks... it appears to me, after doing a bit of research, that obama is the revived ghost of chicago radical community organizer saul alinsky, and is obama's hero... not good... it seems that obama has zero ideas of his own and is nothing but an alinsky parrot... it appears to me that obama's premises, tactics and actions are totally modeled after alinsky, to include, and most certainly not limited to, his most recent walk-out of the budget meeting, and his scare tactics re social security and veterans checks, etc., and stating that his resolve may bring his presidency down... it looks to me that these are not examples of his resolve/way of thinking... he's following the alinsky formula, to the tee... these are all samples of alinsky theatrics that're being employed by obama in an attempt to get his way... contrary to recent media statements, by following the alinsky formula, exactly, in an attempt to accomplish his community, united states and world (re)organizing goals, i really don't think he's personally impacted ... as you know, if one trusts and follows a preconceived formula for action, stress becomes nil, and, in view of this, i think he's in no way thin skinned and/or headed for a 'crack up'... it's all akin to an alinsky idiologically professed facade/call to action/acting and doing, per alinsky, whatever it takes to get the job done, which i could interpret as including concealing and/or telling less than the truth/lying... in my terms, obama's actions before and since his presidential election fit alinsky, perfectly and totally, and, re the walk-out, he's being nothing but a really bad alinsky actor... for example see - ... there are many more sites re this on the net if interested...

    • George Reagan

      Skip, if I remember correctly, Glenn Beck outed the Alinsly/BO and other Chicago thugs connection several years ago. Evidently, most of the American public were either asleep or not paying attention (both being the same). When I attended the Fort Worth (Texas) Tea Party in 2009, several speakers made the same connetion. Most of the same offshoots since have linked the connection. As of today, anybody that doesn't know this is either brain dead or a liberal/progressive/commie/socalist (all being the same) IDIOT!! All we can do is try our best to elect those that are "true conservatives" and will not betray the America we use to have. George Reagan, Fort Worth, Texas, a Tea Party member.

      • skip

        hi george... i'm afraid that if there was discussion re this, it fell on deaf ears, i think most likely as no one knew obama and he therefore had no comparative history... but, now there's plenty... i almost fell out of my chair upon discovering that obama doesn't have a mind of his own, all he's doing is parroting alinsky... baaaaaaaaad news... and hillary is right in there too... there's a lot about alinsky on the net, but the following link seems to be pretty comprehensive -

  • Bill

    Who does Clinton think he is anyway! The dirty rat cost this country trillions of $$$$$$!!
    How much $$$$$$ was spent on getting Osama Bin Laden, were the Muslim Wars started because of Osama and his Terrorist Muslims, $$$$$$ for the American lives lost, on and on .... was this Clintons fault for "not taking" Osama when he was offer up to him before any of all this $$$$$$ was spent????????????????????
    He's the original problem of all this .... and takes no blame at all!!!!!!!

    • dominke

      There is not one living liberal who would take blame for their actions. Look at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae: Both stated up to fall of our economy nothing was wrong. They are the ones that forced banks to loan to people that could not afford loans. Frank and dodd knew that mortgage companies would resell to freddie and fannie and taxpayer would pay for it. Positive proof of corruption and these crooks are still free,WHY.

    • wasadoc

      But then again--neither does obama---

    • kjk

      Its like asking an opinion on the national debt from charlie rangl'em,Slick willie used a big shell game to make the budget look good during his riegn,he cut defense to the bone along with other moves. To no surprise what does the next guy have to do to deal with the armed camel jockeys....rebuild ,spend. And along comes billary, wonder what she does under the desk with her terrorist chief of staff ? So in the muslim order is being a lesi ok as long as you further the muslim cause,and conquer the infidels. At what point does this cult stop giving passes to people who sin in the name of allah or whatever you call him. When will the president realize his race is considered expendable and to be used as mere slaves and disposed of after use like a square of toilet paper?! .....And where the hell is Billary's burka?

  • Washington76

    US default unthinkable? Well, at least since 1979 With the US Treasury busy thundering a debt default would be "an unprecedented event in American history", Diary feels duty-bound to add: "since 1979".

    "Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company." George Washington

  • Ronald Pickens

    I say there is one way to stop this gangster, and that is to impeach him ! I for one are going to tell my congressman/woman that if they don't start impeachment proceedures NOW that they should clean out their desk because they WILL be replaced !

    • dominke

      Amen to that. I have already done that to my congressman.

      • fordman

        As I too have done and also told them no more donation money until I see some results to impeach.

  • Brenda Choate

    If people will read the history of the Civil War era, they will find that the 14th Admandment was added to answer the question of the Civil War, bestowing citizenship to slaves, restricted the service of Confederate participants in the Civil War, and how to discharge the debt accrued by that war.
    Like the admendment dealing with probition, which was later repealed, this one admendment dealt with a specific set of circumstances. Unfortunately, it was not repealed after its usefulness expired.
    I do not doubt Clinton would have tried to evoke the 14th, but then he has problems with the definition of a word. Obama will in all likelyhood try the same thing if he thinks this is the only way he can get his way. After all an executive order is purely out of context for this issue and troding on the Constitution is his favorite pasttime.

    • D. Tina Robinson

      This is interesting about the Civil War era. I do love History and was not aware that this 14th amendment was added at around the time of the Civil War. Yes, I agree, Clinton does have his 'problems' with words and their definitions and Obama acts like the Tyrant that he is if he does not get his way, "trodding on the Constitution is his favorite pasttime." Agreed.

  • Capt,Ed.

    to: savetheUSA, I Wish We Could!! We cannot save the USA because we no longer have the Will or the Power. Your statement, "We the people own the government" is no longer true, unfortunately. We are now being Governed not represented as used to be the case. Once we had a King who Ruled over us, we the people put an end to that. We elected people from among us to represent us and form a new Government. Yes back then we the people did own the Government. What we have at present is a Government by the people but not for the people. The Government has for years conducted actions of corruption and political maneuvering which has resulted in a Government no longer representing the people. The Government of the United States represents only itself and is supported by special interest's both from home and abroad, and the heavy taxes garnished from the private and public sectors. Yes we are no longer "Ruled" we are 'Governed' Until we regain the Will and the Power, don't expect any change but do expect more loss of Liberty and Freedom..........Capt.Ed.

    • SEG

      Truer words were never spoken Capt Ed. I am of the belief that the only way to correct this change in government is the same method we used to change the system in 1776. We are at the stage where we either accept being governed with little or no say and a continued loss of more liberty with each passing "law" or we prepare for civil/revolutionary war. Many won't say this because they are optimist and not realist or because they are afraid to get a "knock at the door". I am neither gullible nor afraid. The time has actually come to water that tree again, now it's a matter of waiting to see what is the source that finally ignites the powder keg this nation is sitting upon.

  • Gary Emch

    Why in the hell would anyone listen to a man who lied to the country while at the same time tried his best to take away
    our 2nd Amendment Rights. I heard he was a draft dodger which to me could be true looking at his liberal views. Bill Clinton just as his wife have done nothing good for America. Hell look at what NAFTA has gotten us. UNEMPLOYMENT AND CORPORATE BETRAYAL! Its unfortunate that we have so many dumb people in America who do nothing but further bring down our nation supporting the liberal left wing cowards.

  • Thomas Martin

    Why does bill clinton even open his lying mouth, he's a POS just like obama.

    • Los

      He is a POS like Ocrappo and he is also a needy narcissist just like Ocrappo

  • dominke

    The black muslim liberal has never followed constitution. He never will. He has to be stopped before we fall into 3rd world country. The intelligence of american people has fallen lower than other 3rd world countries. In recent history since Jimmy Carter we started down this road of destruction and we the people would not listen to the ones who keep saying we are on wrong road. Carter,Clinton,Obama are the worst that have occupied the white house. They have wanted to redistribute the wealth of usa and are now on the edge of doing that. Obama spoke plain english any fifth grade student coud understand but the voters didnot understand.He said he would steal our wealth which he has. He said he would fundamentally change america,which he has.The liberals wont be satified until they are eating out of trash cans. Than they will want a handout from those that have food. I will not offer one thing to a liberal. Live by sword than die by it.

  • MLH

    We The People have had to contract in our economic lives ... NOW it is time for the Government to CONTRACT economically with us too! We have to pull the money plug on IT or IT will ruin and or kill us all. 😉

  • Washington76

    We the people hold the trump card if Washington tries this non-sense. The tenth amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    • 57girl

      And our "Declaration of Independence" gives us the right (and duty) to overthrow a corrupt Government. Until the people take a stand TOGETHER and quit allowing themselves to manipulated by the Media's divisional games (Political Party, Race, Gender, Sexual Preference,etc.) and actually demand our Constitution be upheld and our rights restored, the SOS is going to keep on keeping on and the debt is going to continue to pile up. We have got to DEMAND justice and we'd better do it before it is too late.

  • George Reagan

    WOW!! This guy's good. If BO studied and "taught" constitutional law, then why is he so stupid about it?? Maybe, ... just maybe, he didn't. But, hey, that's OK, he fudged everything else to fool everybody. His birth certificate, passports, collage degrees, him self, ... you get my drift. BO is a dolt, among other things, and the sooner he is outed, the better for America. Let's just hope we choose someone that can do something to correct the situation, before it's too late.

  • N. Glenn

    Re: 'Congress allowed to vote a second time' - - -

    Per Article 1 of the Constitution, if Congress has the responsibility to approve public debt, this ALSO means they can DIS-approve it, AND can modify their actions to suit. This must mean that if expenditures are going for other than what they intended, they can stop payment on the check, so to speak. If they want to vote for or against a tax or expenditure twice, or six, or fourteen times, it's their perogative!

    If the President doesn't like this, resign and go be president somewhere else!

    • 57girl

      N.Glenn, I like the way you think. Maybe Obama could find it in his heart to take his Czars and Benny boy with him.

  • JohnC. Freeport, NY

    Re: Obama......In my mind, I have already impeached this vermin puke.
    As far as I am concerned, the seat of the Presidency of the United States is empty.
    This fraud has to go! One way or another, he has to go.

    • 57girl

      We would be better off it were empty. But of course, then Joe would be sitting in . . . which is no doubt why Obama chose him as a running mate to begin with. Between Obama and Joe Biden, it's hard to tell which is the worser evil. Neither are qualified to lead America anywhere, but to hell.

  • Jeannie

    czarbama just wants to do what ever he wants. czarbama does not care about anyone but himself. czarbama is a thin skin idiot. If you insuft him or say something he does not like, you are out of here.

  • 57girl

    the Treasury department “sells” its $300 billion gold reserve to the Fed for a specified period of time to raise money, with the understanding that when the debt ceiling is raised, the Treasury will buy it back from the Fed.
    I like Ron Paul's response to this ludicrous suggestion. The Federal Reserve LOANED the Government money (at interest) that it counterfeited out of thin air. Any monies we supposedly owe the Federal Reserve (since they claim to be a Government institution thus meaning they owe themselves the money anyway) should be simply erased. If they can add zeros from nothing, they can subtract them the same way. At least that would put a dent in our REAL debt. And if the Federal Reserve admits they are private bankers, then they are admitting they are unconstitutional. Yes, let's do go back and look at Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution. Had we followed it's instruction in 1913, the power of the purse would have never left the U.S. Treasury to begin with and we wouldn't be buried up to our eyeballs in debt now. The dollar is getting ready to collapse. Better to get ready for the Amero, people. And watch for the announcement of the NAU next. Sadly enough, no one listened to Ron Paul in 2001 when he predicted the fall of the housing bomb (before it ever happened). I doubt many will listen to him now, easier just to chalk him up as a kook without a clue when in fact he is probably the only one with a possible solution (long-term) to the financial crisis at hand. No wonder we're plagued with Obama in the White House. The people evidently aren't paying attention to the words that come of these Politicians mouths. To date, the only honest one I'd bank on is Ron Paul.

    Don't you little froggies feel the water getting a little hotter every day?

    • EDDIE

      I agree 100% . If we don't get Ron Paul next time we get second best. I just can't understand why so many people are blind to the facts right in front of thier faces. I love your little froggies thing, but if you remember, the froggies don't feel it until its too late.

  • Washington76

    Circumventing with the 14th Amendment won’t actually work

  • Rory Farmer

    Reading these comments indicates a fundamental understanding of the US Constitution than Slick Willie and his wife have. These writers show that the educational systems (public and private) actually worked. Why do we continue to believe that graduates of Harvard (Law School) know how to interpret the constitution when they seem intent on establishing a progressive monarchy? Examine the twisted logic of E Holden, B Obama, and others are using in destroying the American ideal!

  • Rory Farmer

    Oops! left out that the writers of these comments have an actual understanding of the federal constitution compared to Slick Willie and his wife.

  • Dennis

    People, you are witnessing the dismantling of America, It has been going on for years right under your nose. They say a sucker is born every minute. If you want to know the percentage of how many suckers are in the US, it can be established by the percentage of votes Obama received when elected. If you want to save America, we have to undertake the impossible task to educate all the morons who voted for Obama. Good Luck!!!!!!!

  • GNorwood

    It's wonderful to see so many of us making reference to the Constitution of the United States. This document, crafted more than two hundred years ago, is inspiring and the saving grace of our nation. Thank God, no man is bigger than this glorious work of genius. People who criticize the Constitution can say anything they want, but one thing's for sure: They couldn't go anywhere else on the planet and receive all the protections it provides. Our country is great because of it.

  • Mary Thom

    I was going to show this article to my son-in-law because I agree with the substance, but I don't feel it would be very convincing because of all the name-calling and emotionalism in the comments. I agree with many of you, but I wish we could stick to the facts which speak for themselves.

  • skyskiers

    If you want the truth about the recent insanity of

    raising the debt-ceiling, then copy and past this link from the American thinker.

    Then read the story "WE THE STUPID!"

  • Charlie

    Constitutional issue