Bronco Billy Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Um...Presidents send legislation to Congress ALL THE TIME. There's a real disconnect in any argument that wants to ignore that fact. I'm sorry. I didn't see where Obama had sent any legislation to Congress regarding the decisions he made regarding the automotive industry yesterday. Perhaps you can enlighten me. There's a distinct difference between sending legislation and legislating. Now you're smart so you know that, but you want to argue the points - I'm not sure why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 We haven't seen a presidential firing of employees since the air traffic controllers, so it does happen. Um, weren't the air traffic controllers federal employees? And weren't they fired because they didn't want to show up for work? The air traffic controllers were doing something illegal as well weren't they? It's just a few administrations prior to Reagan allowed them to break the law and looked the other way so they could continue getting campaign contributions. Boy that sounds familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I'm sorry. I didn't see where Obama had sent any legislation to Congress regarding the decisions he made regarding the automotive industry yesterday. Perhaps you can enlighten me. There's a distinct difference between sending legislation and legislating. Now you're smart so you know that, but you want to argue the points - I'm not sure why. I think the bailouts are a crock of crap. I think Obama and his plans are bad for this nation long term. Having said that, if congress passed the bail outs, and if the bailouts passed included a provision that set goals that executives must achieve, and if wagoner didn't achieve them, then Obama as the executive who enforces the law did the right thing. You can argue that what congress did is unconstitutional, but then it is up to the supreme court to decide that, not Obama. Damn, I feel dirty. I think I'm going to go take a shower now. Edited March 31, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Um...Presidents send legislation to Congress ALL THE TIME. There's a real disconnect in any argument that wants to ignore that fact. Earlier in the thread I referenced constitutional definition of powers granted, and making recommendations to congress is absolutely in the scope of the president's powers. TARP was sent up by the Admin, and Congress passed it into law. It could arguably, although probably challenged, as falling under To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Portion of section 8. "Powers of Congress" We haven't seen a presidential firing of employees since the air traffic controllers, so it does happen. In my understanding, this is a real stretch of the commerce clause. Here's a discussion on the commerce clause as it pertains to state versus federal government, with supporting case law. What ends up being ambiguous in the definition is the scope of the word "regulate". In my understanding, the Child Labor Laws (as brought up by Cre8tiff earlier in the thread) are appropriate regulation as it is a law that is intended as broad coverage in he best interest of the country, states, and citizens. Actions against specific entities or people (again, in my understanding) need to be addressed differently, or through some governing dynamic such as Anti-Trust law. Specifically taxing employees of one company or firing the CEO of another is not "regulation", it's virtually direct oversight/meddling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I'm sorry. I didn't see where Obama had sent any legislation to Congress regarding the decisions he made regarding the automotive industry yesterday. Perhaps you can enlighten me. There's a distinct difference between sending legislation and legislating. Now you're smart so you know that, but you want to argue the points - I'm not sure why. Unless I'm mistaken, any and all fed money given out is written to a bill on in an appropriations package that congress will vote on. That was the case with TARP, wasn't it? I haven't seen anything else here that would indicate it's different. And Nick - I know you like court cases, has anyone been bringing this to court to try to stop it on the grounds it's unconstitutional? Edited March 31, 2009 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) to nick's analysis I would just add the 10th amendment: The 10th Amendment has been dead since Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936). I know the Constitution claims that the federal government is one of limited powers, but centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence have castrated that truism. Like it or hate it, that's the current state of the law. As far as the "constitutionality" of all this, Congress has the ability to do just about whatever it wants pursuant to the Commerce Clause. If Congress passes bailout laws that allow government investment in private companies, then the President has the authority to carry out those laws. There is only once case since 1937 that has held that Congress exceeded the scope of its ability to regulate interstate commerce. Moreover, Congress' spending powers are virtually unlimited. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Thus, Congress is free to spend on equity investments in private companies - or condition such spending - however it so chooses. Edited March 31, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 As far as the "constitutionality" of all this, Congress has the ability to do just about whatever it wants pursuant to the Commerce Clause. If Congress passes bailout laws that allow government investment in private companies, then the President has the authority to carry out those laws. There is only once case since 1937 that has held that Congress exceeded the scope of its ability to regulate interstate commerce. Moreover, Congress' spending powers are virtually unlimited. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Thus, Congress is free to spend on equity investments in private companies - or condition such spending - however it so chooses. Am I glad I didn't start making claims with a high degree of certainty, initially proving I didn't have a clue of what I was talking about and then eventually being completely wrong. Glad that wasn't me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) The 10th Amendment has been dead since Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936). I know the Constitution claims that the federal government is one of limited powers, but centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence have castrated that truism. Like it or hate it, that's the current state of the law. As far as the "constitutionality" of all this, Congress has the ability to do just about whatever it wants pursuant to the Commerce Clause. If Congress passes bailout laws that allow government investment in private companies, then the President has the authority to carry out those laws. There is only once case since 1937 that has held that Congress exceeded the scope of its ability to regulate interstate commerce. Moreover, Congress' spending powers are virtually unlimited. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Thus, Congress is free to spend on equity investments in private companies - or condition such spending - however it so chooses. I know you are the lawyer, and I probably have no business refuting your opinion, but to my understanding (from a historic perspectave), Congress derives it's attitude of doin whatever it wants through he application of the Necessary and Proper clause to, well, just about anything they want. Not saying that I think it' right or that I agree with the interpretation in any way, but that seems to be the general rationale as to how they get around constitutionality. IMO, this was certainly not the intention of the framers. but 191ish years of legal precedent don't care what I think. Edited April 1, 2009 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) I know you are the lawyer, and I probably have no business refuting your opinion, but to my understanding (from a historic perspectave), Congress derives it's attitude of doin whatever it wants through he application of the Necessary and Proper clause to, well, just about anything they want. Not saying that I think it' right or that I agree with the interpretation in any way, but that seems to be the general rationale as to how they get around constitutionality. IMO, this was certainly not the intention of the framers. but 191ish years of legal precedent don't care what I think. Kinda sorta, but not really. Congress' spending powers are explicitly granted pursuant to Article I sec. 8. Congress' ability to regulate matters of inter-state commerce is also explicitly granted by Article I sec. 8. These explicit provisions arguably give Congress all the authority it needs to invest in private industry, or to attach conditions to private industry's acceptance of such investment. However, in the event those explicit powers are somehow insufficient, then Congress can use the "necessary and proper" clause (also from Article I sec. 8), which states Congress may "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" of the specific legislative powers granted by Article I sec. 8, or other parts of the Constitution. (That would include regulation of commerce and spending). Pursuant to the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), this language was interpreted to give Congress "implied powers" because (as the argument goes), while the federal government may act only where it is affirmatively authorized by the Constitution, that authorization need not be "explicit." And while Article II sec. 1 does prohibit the president from making laws, he is authorized to carry out those laws passed by Congress. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Long story short, Obama can do pretty much whatever Congress will let him do when it comes to matters of regulating commerce and spending our tax dollars. Not saying I like it, but the "constitutional" objections to Obama placing conditions on GM's acceptance of tax dollars don't seem particularly well founded to me. However, this does serve as a great example of why people are always afraid when one party controls both Congress and the Presidency: when they're on the same page their combined powers are disturbingly broad. Edited April 1, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Kinda sorta, but not really. Congress' spending powers are explicitly granted pursuant to Article I sec. 8. Congress' ability to regulate matters of inter-state commerce is also explicitly granted by Article I sec. 8. These explicit provisions arguably give Congress all the authority it needs to invest in private industry, or to attach conditions to private industry's acceptance of such investment. However, in the event those explicit powers are somehow insufficient, then Congress can use the "necessary and proper" clause (also from Article I sec. 8), which states Congress may "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" of the specific legislative powers granted by Article I sec. 8, or other parts of the Constitution. (That would include regulation of commerce and spending). Pursuant to the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), this language was interpreted to give Congress "implied powers" because (as the argument goes), while the federal government may act only where it is affirmatively authorized by the Constitution, that authorization need not be "explicit." And while Article II sec 1 does prohibits the president from making laws, he is authorized to carry out those laws passed by Congress. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Long story short, Obama can do pretty much whatever Congress will let him do when it comes to matters of regulating commerce and spending our tax dollars. Not saying I like it, but the "constitutional" objections to Obama placing conditions on GM's acceptance of tax dollars don't seem particularly well founded to me. However, this does serve as a great example of why people are always afraid when one party controls both Congress and the Presidency: when they're on the same page they're combined powers are disturbingly broad. I think we got off course early... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I think we got off course early... Oh, the irony, as the power-grab in McCulloch v. Maryland was ultimately used in that case to strike down as unconstitutional a tax on a Maryland bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 which is why I don't really get atomic glossing right over that fact with the argument, "hey, as long as we're interceding on behalf of some corporations, it makes sense to push that intercession to the hilt." What the hell are you talking about. Here's the deal... from now on stick to your opinion. You clearly have no concept how to understand someone else's. kthx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 The 10th Amendment has been dead since Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936). I know the Constitution claims that the federal government is one of limited powers, but centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence have castrated that truism. Yep, the courts f......ing all over the constitution, don't think the founders intended that to happen did they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Yep, the courts f......ing all over the constitution, don't think the founders intended that to happen did they? Well, they did give the judicial branch a large say in our constitutional process. If our founding fathers gave the last stop gap check and balance to the Supreme Court, what do really think they intended? Again, I'm no constitutional scholar, but I did get an A in my high school Rights and Responsibilities class, and I typically stay at a Holiday Inn when I travel. Edited April 1, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Not one swinging dick shoulda been bailed out. Sink or f....... swim baby. This whole thing is just a power grab by yobama and his social engineering masters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Yep, the courts f......ing all over the constitution, don't think the founders intended that to happen did they? In all fairness, virtually every administration (republican or democrat) has pushed to expand the powers of the executive branch. I think we can all join hands (at least metaphorically) and curse career politicians in general for that selfish nonsense. As far as the Supreme Court goes, its their job to interpret frequently vague language. It was the Founders who set things up that way (both the intentionally vague language and the Court's interpretive power over it), so to a certain extent this is exactly what the Founders envisioned. Not a specific result, per se, but that guiding general principles would be applied by really smart people who were exempted from the political process to the greatest extent possible. Who knows what the Founders would think of the current Supreme Court. But for better or worse, what ever it is today is what the Founders allowed it to become. Edited April 1, 2009 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Not one swinging dick shoulda been bailed out. Sink or f....... swim baby. This whole thing is just a power grab by yobama and his social engineering masters. Seriously. Read a newspaper. BUSH GAVE THEM THE MONEY LAST FALL! Not congress.... not Obama... George W. Bush as an act of the executive branch bailed out the car companies, and set the stage for the current predicament. Nobody thinks this is a good idea, except for auto executives and Michigan residents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Quit reading newspapers years ago, we're gonna bail them out too I hear. Bush? Obama makes Bush look like a real fiscal conservative. Christ, Obama is a liberals wet-dream! The rest of us can't afford that a-hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 The 10th Amendment has been dead since Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936). I know the Constitution claims that the federal government is one of limited powers, but centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence have castrated that truism. Like it or hate it, that's the current state of the law. As far as the "constitutionality" of all this, Congress has the ability to do just about whatever it wants pursuant to the Commerce Clause. If Congress passes bailout laws that allow government investment in private companies, then the President has the authority to carry out those laws. There is only once case since 1937 that has held that Congress exceeded the scope of its ability to regulate interstate commerce. Moreover, Congress' spending powers are virtually unlimited. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Thus, Congress is free to spend on equity investments in private companies - or condition such spending - however it so chooses. well, clearly there's no chance in hell the courts are going to rule any of this unconstitutional. I don't think anyone would seriously argue otherwise. but the point I would make is that we've definitely gone pretty far afield from the type of government the founders envisioned, and intended to codify with the constitution. the 10th amendment indicates that intention pretty emphatically, even if, as you point out, the courts have completely neutered it as far as any practical application. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 7 pages in and ALL of us are scratching our collective heads and asses. The times they are a changing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Seriously. Read a newspaper. BUSH GAVE THEM THE MONEY LAST FALL! Not congress.... not Obama... George W. Bush as an act of the executive branch bailed out the car companies, and set the stage for the current predicament. Nobody thinks this is a good idea, except for auto executives and Michigan residents. To be fair - Bush gave them half of the original $700 billion, leaving the other half for the Obama adminstration to release (or not?). It is fair to say that Obama has given more in bailouts than Bush did. A lot of that is simply timing and the mess that Obama inherited, but it's stooooopid to say that Obama has been careful with a dollar. True story - my wife and I were feeding my FIL breakfast on Sunday and this old guy (this is at an assited living center) at the table starts telling jokes. "What is now the fastest thing in America? Obama spending a trillion dollars!" I thought it was pretty funny coming from a very old gentleman missing both of his legs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 The times they are a changing. Very true. Hold on to the sides of the handbasket, it's going to be a bumpy ride! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) It is fair to say that Obama has given more in bailouts than Bush did. It is fair to say Obama has started fewer wars than Bush did... Edited April 1, 2009 by evil_gop_liars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) clearly there's no chance in hell the courts are going to rule any of this unconstitutional. Have to agree here! Edited April 1, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Dear Osama Hussein Barack Hitler, Just wanted to let you know I got my bonus today. Was it really neccessary to take 58% in taxes to support your crack habit? In the immortal words of The Greatest President in History's wife, "Just say NO!". Anyways, I hope you use the money for good....like blowing up commies and not for feeding the lazy poor. How does it feel knowing Reagan on Alzheimers had more common sense than you'll ever possess? Anyways, I'll check in tomorrow and see if you've stolen anymore of my monies to give to those desperate millionaire bankers and hedge fund managers. Thanks, Tim C"ocaine's a helluva drug" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.