President Obama Taking 90% Of Pay Constitutional?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='23 October 2009 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1256275576' post='1990135']
While I don't think the government should have done the bailouts, these companies were not forced to take the bailouts. They asked for them. (And, let's not overlook that each of these execs took their own private planes, and then drove to the capitol in limousines for these "begging trips.") [/quote]


Before I go to bed I would like to point out just one more time. Many of the companies namely the banks were FORCED and threatened into "taking" the TARP money. Seriously does that even matter to anyone?

[quote name='zunshynn' date='23 October 2009 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1256275576' post='1990135']
So yeah... You ask for government money, you take government money, you're agreeing to government control over your company.
[/quote]

Sorry guys, you simply would not be making these arguments if it was "ordinary" citizens being treated this way. If they did there would be such an outcry through out the land that such a practice would end with a quickness. If we where talking about grammy's home that grandpa built with his bare hands being stolen by the government. There would be outrage! But since it is the Rich being attacked, having their property stolen, we "ordinary" citizens are a ok with it. The Rich after all have too much, their just greedy greedy people. It is just amazing how much "ordinary" citizens know the hearts of the hated Rich.

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[zunshynn]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1256276552' post='1990139']
Before I go to bed I would like to point out just one more time. Many of the companies namely the banks were FORCED and threatened into "taking" the TARP money. Seriously does that even matter to anyone?[/quote]

Evidence?

[quote]Sorry guys, you simply would not be making these arguments if it was "ordinary" citizens being treated this way. If they did there would be such an outcry through out the land that such a practice would end with a quickness. If we where talking about grammy's home that grandpa built with his bare hands being stolen by the government. There would be outrage! But since it is the Rich being attacked, having their property stolen, we "ordinary" citizens are a ok with it. The Rich after all have too much, their just greedy greedy people. It is just amazing how much "ordinary" citizens know the hearts of the hated Rich.
[/quote]

And how would that play out for "ordinary" citizens? The COMPANIES were bailed out. Not individuals. But the government wouldn't bail out ordinary citizens anyway. There would not be enough reason to. They wouldn't bail out individual execs either. Companies have enough economic power to engage the government, individuals do not.

Give me a break. Their property is not being "stolen." The money they already have in the bank is not being taken away. They gave up control of their businesses when they took government money to get them out of a financial mess. One of the consequences of that is that they've been given a choice. Take a cut in pay, or work elsewhere. Government money is funding these companies (which, in my opinion, it should not be) These companies are now being paid for, not by private profits... which means they are in a position to regulate how that money is spent. The money that I will earn next month is not my "property." I have not earned it yet. And if my employer changes my wages or job description, my freedom is not infringed by that. I have the freedom to leave if I don't like the new arrangement.

I'm not passing ANY judgement on these people's hearts. But they made a decision to ask for a bailout from the government. There are consequences to those decisions.

Edited October 23, 2009 by zunshynn

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='23 October 2009 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1256277950' post='1990141']
Evidence?[/quote]


Post 22 of this thread I can offer more if you would like, tomorrow. And evidence can be provided, thus it mostly nulls and voids the most of the rest of what you have stated below, not all but most but I be back tomorrow. Promise.


[quote name='zunshynn' date='23 October 2009 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1256277950' post='1990141']
And how would that play out for "ordinary" citizens? The COMPANIES were bailed out. Not individuals. But the government wouldn't bail out ordinary citizens anyway. There would not be enough reason to. They wouldn't bail out individual execs either. Companies have enough economic power to engage the government, individuals do not.



Give me a break. Their property is not being "stolen." The money they already have in the bank is not being taken away. They gave up control of their businesses when they took government money to get them out of a financial mess. One of the consequences of that is that they've been given a choice. Take a cut in pay, or work elsewhere. Government money is funding these companies (which, in my opinion, it should not be) These companies are now being paid for, not by private profits... which means they are in a position to regulate how that money is spent. The money that I will earn next month is not my "property." I have not earned it yet. And if my employer changes my wages or job description, my freedom is not infringed by that. I have the freedom to leave if I don't like the new arrangement.

I'm not passing ANY judgement on these people's hearts. But they made a decision to ask for a bailout from the government. There are consequences to those decisions.
[/quote]

Edited October 23, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[aalpha1989]

I'm having trouble sleeping, so I'm back online. Maybe I should just read instead. *sigh*.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='23 October 2009 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1256274501' post='1990133']
I hope you'll forgive me I only had time to respond to what I really objected too.




That is wicked. But that is not what I objected too. You clearly argued that there is a limit on the amount a person has the 'right to make.' That is what I objected too. I would again ask you, how much is too much, and can you name a person that is too rich?

Making it illegal to purpose your life to obtain money would be making a thought illegal. That is why that would be difficult and wrong to prosecute. The other, being too rich would be easy to proof with empirical evidence. Bank accounts, Scrooge McDuck's safe where he swam in his gold coins.

Again how much is too much? Who are you to determine what there needsare anyway? Do you not think it possible that a person could make asmuch if not more and be bless by God to have it?

I ask you yet again how much is too much? What is the most someonecan make? If you don't know then how do you know "these men" make toomuch of it?
[/quote]


You are right that I argued that a person doesn't have a right to make that much. I later contradicted myself when I said that I didn't care how much they had access to, as long as they used it for the greater good. I guess I haven't thought it all the way through.

Here's my tentative decision. Someone can be too rich only if they use an unreasonable amount on themselves. I still believe that silk shirts and private jets are unnecessary and I don't believe a case could ever be made for them. The amount of money that a person controls is not really my concern. If a person earns a great amount of money justly (and I don't believe that money earned on the stock market IS justly earned, but that's another argument) then they should use it well. By using it well, I mean that they should first provide for their own needs and for the needs of their family. Of course that involves clothing and transportation... but by dressing oneself in silk and flying in such style, is one trying to impress God or man? When Aquinas addresses modesty in dress in the [i]Summa[/i], he speaks more against fancy dress than against revealing dress. This is because Greed is a greater sin than Lust.

When one's needs have been met reasonably (a question of prudence) the needs of others should be met.

Because the exact amount which is "reasonable" is a question of prudence, no man can set a mark and force others to follow is own ideas. It is easy to reject the polar opposites, though. It is easy to say that it would be imprudent to have only a single set of clothes and to live as the homeless. I don't think you would disagree with that. You cannot forget, though, that there is definitely another extreme. This is the extreme which is [i]very[/i] obvious in the lives of corporate executives. Too rich.

The money left over can be used for some amount of luxury (again, a question of prudence). A trip to Europe, a few evenings out, etc. The needs of the poor cannot be forgotten. One should relinquish the remainder of ones salary if one is living comfortably and [i]reasonably[/i]. As I said before, it is up to the individual to decide what is reasonable, but there are definite extremes which cannot be denied.

Capitalism has been condemned because it takes advantage of the worker, and because, by definition, [i]capital[/i] is the ultimate goal. The purpose of capitalism is to generate the most money. It can be condemned for the same reason that socialism can be. Money is god. Charity is dead. Where does spirituality fit in here?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='23 October 2009 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1256277950' post='1990141']
And how would that play out for "ordinary" citizens? The COMPANIES were bailed out. Not individuals. But the government wouldn't bail out ordinary citizens anyway. There would not be enough reason to. They wouldn't bail out individual execs either. Companies have enough economic power to engage the government, individuals do not.
[/quote]

I know who was bailed out and who was not. I believe the Government had no Constitutional power to give them the money in the first place. I believe they did not bail us out because yes they don't really care for us, but also because they knew we would not stand to be controlled like they control the Free Market now. But they could and do control the Free Market like never before because the rich have been so demonized and hated.

What the government did then was not Constitutional, what they do now by taking over private companies is not Constitutional. Where in the Constitution does Government have the right to own private companies? Does anyone care about the liberty and freedoms of a "Free Market" anymore or is that ideal dead?

The point I was making is that had the Government given regular old Joes and Jennies the money. Then it turned around and started punishing us in similar ways, the people would protest to the heavens. People would not stand for the Government taking their property and forcing them to find another job or take a 90% cut in pay.

The reason regular old Joe's support this attack against their fellow citizens is because it is not themselves that are being attacked.


[quote name='zunshynn' date='23 October 2009 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1256277950' post='1990141']

I'm not passing ANY judgement on these people's hearts. But they made a decision to ask for a bailout from the government. There are consequences to those decisions.
[/quote]

You may not but that is how many people justify this injustice. "They are too rich" "serves them right" "their all greedy" and so forth. Receiving a gift does not allow the giver to dictate what you can and can not do with your property. Again, the logic that makes it ok for the Government to steal personal property because rich citizens where given money is circular reasoning. IE Why is it ok for the Government to take control of the Free Market? Because the Government gave them money. Why is that a justification? Because the Government gave them money. Etc etc etc etc....

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1256281463' post='1990160']
You are right that I argued that a person doesn't have a right to make that much. I later contradicted myself when I said that I didn't care how much they had access to, as long as they used it for the greater good. I guess I haven't thought it all the way through.

Here's my tentative decision. Someone can be too rich only if they use an unreasonable amount on themselves. I still believe that silk shirts and private jets are unnecessary and I don't believe a case could ever be made for them. The amount of money that a person controls is not really my concern. If a person earns a great amount of money justly (and I don't believe that money earned on the stock market IS justly earned, but that's another argument) then they should use it well. By using it well, I mean that they should first provide for their own needs and for the needs of their family. Of course that involves clothing and transportation... but by dressing oneself in silk and flying in such style, is one trying to impress God or man? When Aquinas addresses modesty in dress in the [i]Summa[/i], he speaks more against fancy dress than against revealing dress. This is because Greed is a greater sin than Lust.

When one's needs have been met reasonably (a question of prudence) the needs of others should be met.

Because the exact amount which is "reasonable" is a question of prudence, no man can set a mark and force others to follow is own ideas. It is easy to reject the polar opposites, though. It is easy to say that it would be imprudent to have only a single set of clothes and to live as the homeless. I don't think you would disagree with that. You cannot forget, though, that there is definitely another extreme. This is the extreme which is [i]very[/i] obvious in the lives of corporate executives. Too rich.

The money left over can be used for some amount of luxury (again, a question of prudence). A trip to Europe, a few evenings out, etc. The needs of the poor cannot be forgotten. One should relinquish the remainder of ones salary if one is living comfortably and [i]reasonably[/i]. As I said before, it is up to the individual to decide what is reasonable, but there are definite extremes which cannot be denied.[/quote]

You are good hearted, but your argument still smells of envy. After this next class, or when I return home I will show how.

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1256281463' post='1990160']
Capitalism has been condemned because it takes advantage of the worker, and because, by definition, [i]capital[/i] is the ultimate goal. The purpose of capitalism is to generate the most money. It can be condemned for the same reason that socialism can be. Money is god. Charity is dead. Where does spirituality fit in here?
[/quote]

Find it provide it. Documents of the Holy Pontiffs. I know you can find condemnation of Capitalism without Morals, but as a whole? I doubt you will be able too provide such evidence.

[rkwright]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 October 2009 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1256268629' post='1990063']
Ok, prove it. What part of the TARP laws do you suggest gave the Executive Branch the right to take private property?



I'm not playing word games and it is but with a witch hunt, drum court style. Private companies and individuals are being punished and accused of unjust and wrongful actions by Government officials in the public square without due process of law, without means to defend themselves in court judge by their peers.
[/quote]

As I understand it, TARP explicitly gives the Executive Branch this right.

[quote]b. Limits on executive compensation
The Act sets some new limits on the compensation of the five highest-paid executives at companies that elect to participate significantly in TARP. The Act treats companies that participate through the auction process differently from those that participate through direct sale (that is, without a bidding process).[/quote]
Source
http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/issues/bailouts/eesa.shtml

Edit: Found the actual text of the bill: Sec 111
[quote]b) Direct Purchases-
(1) IN GENERAL- Where the Secretary determines that the purposes of this Act are best met through direct purchases of troubled assets from an individual financial institution where no bidding process or market prices are available, and the Secretary receives a meaningful equity or debt position in the financial institution as a result of the transaction, the Secretary shall require that the financial institution meet appropriate standards for executive compensation and corporate governance. The standards required under this subsection shall be effective for the duration of the period that the Secretary holds an equity or debt position in the financial institution.
(2) CRITERIA- The standards required under this subsection shall include--
[b](A) limits on compensation that exclude incentives for senior executive officers of a financial institution to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution during the period that the Secretary holds an equity or debt position in the financial institution;[/b]
(B) a provision for the recovery by the financial institution of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive officer based on statements of earnings, gains, or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate; and
(C) a prohibition on the financial institution making any golden parachute payment to its senior executive officer during the period that the Secretary holds an equity or debt position in the financial institution.[/quote]


I don't see a violation of the constitution. The law was passed by congress, giving the executive branch the right to enforce it.

Edited October 23, 2009 by rkwright

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' date='23 October 2009 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1256323315' post='1990332']
As I understand it, TARP explicitly gives the Executive Branch this right.


Source
http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/issues/bailouts/eesa.shtml

Edit: Found the actual text of the bill: Sec 111



I don't see a violation of the constitution. The law was passed by congress, giving the executive branch the right to enforce it.
[/quote]

Thank you. But I do still see this a a violation of the Constitution. Where is the clause in the Constitution that gives the Government the right to own private companies? This is just another example of run away spending, and unconstitutional law.


[url="http://www.freedomworks.org/tarp"]New Report: The TARP is Unconstitutional[/url]

Our government is based on the separation of powers. This means, as the Constitution states, that "All legislative Powers" are "vested in a Congress of the United States" and cannot be delegated to the executive branch. A new legal brief finds that the broad authority of the TARP "Wall Street bailout" legislation violates this legal doctrine and is unconstitutional.

On October 3, 2008, Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check— for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. Awash with fear of an impending financial crisis, Congress enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 ("EESA"), giving the Secretary staggering and unprecedented power to create the TARP program and intervene directly in our nation's economy.

BREAKING: This Analysis Featured in [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16challenge.html?ref=us"]the New York Times[/url].

When Congress debated this "Wall Street bailout" bill and explained it to the American people, most expected the Secretary would use his newly acquired authority to purchase "troubled" mortgage-related assets from major banks who were, in the catchword of the moment, "too big to fail." But with blank check in hand, the Secretary almost immediately began to spend it differently. Sec. Paulson has funneled tax dollars to banks both large and small, both troubled and healthy, and to non-bank institutions such as auto lenders and insurers. Further, instead of purchasing troubled assets, he has purchased direct equity stakes in these various institutions.

Putting aside any merits of these various actions, the process should raise alarm. The Secretary was enabled to stray from the originally envisioned approach because EESA granted him enormous power with very few limits on his discretion. In our view, EESA violates the core principle, rooted in the Constitution’s separation of powers, that Congress may not delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch.

The full legal brief explains the importance of the "nondelegation" principle to our constitutional system and concludes that EESA unconstitutionally violates that principle by delegating such a broad lawmaking power to the Secretary.
Read the legal analysis

[url="http://www.freedomworks.org/files/policyanalysis.pdf"]StudyDownload[/url] a .pdf of the full report (2 MB)

"EESA violates the core principle, rooted in the Constitution's separation of powers, that Congress may not delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch."

FreedomWorks Foundation analysis of the legal and constitutional issues with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA)-- the TARP legislation.

File Attachments

[url="http://www.freedomworks.org/files/policyanalysis.pdf"]policyanalysis.pdf[/url]

[zunshynn]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='23 October 2009 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1256318910' post='1990309']
I know who was bailed out and who was not. I believe the Government had no Constitutional power to give them the money in the first place. I believe they did not bail us out because yes they don't really care for us, but also because they knew we would not stand to be controlled like they control the Free Market now. But they could and do control the Free Market like never before because the rich have been so demonized and hated.

What the government did then was not Constitutional, what they do now by taking over private companies is not Constitutional. Where in the Constitution does Government have the right to own private companies? Does anyone care about the liberty and freedoms of a "Free Market" anymore or is that ideal dead?

The point I was making is that had the Government given regular old Joes and Jennies the money. Then it turned around and started punishing us in similar ways, the people would protest to the heavens. People would not stand for the Government taking their property and forcing them to find another job or take a 90% cut in pay.

The reason regular old Joe's support this attack against their fellow citizens is because it is not themselves that are being attacked.[/quote]

The fact that you don't LIKE it (and I don't like it either) doesn't make it unconstitutional. Congress passed it.

The point is THEY AREN'T BEING PUNISHED. It's not their money anymore. Hypothetically, if I asked the government to bail out my small business and it did, and then it determined that the allocation of those resources were going to be changed, I wouldn't have any business complaining. I asked for the bailout.

You still haven't given any evidence that they were forced.

The companies that are doing well, using their resources reasonably, like Microsoft and Apple and so on are using the free market. The companies that didn't use the free market got themselves into a mess, and invited the government to fix it. It's too bad they don't like the consequences. But they should have realized there would be consequences.

[quote]You may not but that is how many people justify this injustice. "They are too rich" "serves them right" "their all greedy" and so forth. Receiving a gift does not allow the giver to dictate what you can and can not do with your property. Again, the logic that makes it ok for the Government to steal personal property because rich citizens where given money is circular reasoning. IE Why is it ok for the Government to take control of the Free Market? Because the Government gave them money. Why is that a justification? Because the Government gave them money. Etc etc etc etc....
[/quote]

The Government doesn't "give" anyone anything. The bail outs were not a gift out of the depth of the government's heart. It was an economic move. Anyone who accepted the bail outs should have realized that. They essentially invited the government to own their companies. When I first heard about the bail outs, I may not have realized this was what the government was planning, but it was obvious they were planning something. I can't believe these companies were clueless. Grants given to college students are not "gifts"... it's money distributed with the aim of benefiting the economy. Just like the government is perfectly within its rights to make contingencies on how those grants are spent and how they qualify for it. The government basically gave these companies a grant. And it created contingencies... This money is not going to be spent on astronomical salaries for executives. And once again... a person's salary that has not yet been earned is not their property.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='23 October 2009 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1256345626' post='1990427']
The fact that you don't LIKE it (and I don't like it either) doesn't make it unconstitutional. Congress passed it.[/quote]

Post 55 right above this one provides evidence that it is unconstitutional.

[quote name='zunshynn' date='23 October 2009 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1256345626' post='1990427']You still haven't given any evidence that they were forced.
[/quote]

[url="http://vlogz.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/documents-paulson-forced-9-banks-to-take-tarp/"]Documents: Paulson forced 9 banks to take TARP[/url]
May 14, 2009

[b]NEW YORK (AP) — The chief executives of the country’s nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents released Wednesday have confirmed.[/b]

Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents revealed “talking points” used by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the October 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required “in any circumstance,” whether the banks found them appealing or not.

Paulson also told the bankers it would not be prudent to opt out of the program because doing so “would leave you vulnerable and exposed.”

The meeting was hosted by Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair and current Treasury chief Timothy Geithner, who was then president of the New York Fed.

The banks that were initially required to accept the funds were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., State Street Corp., Bank of New York Mellon and Bank of America Corp., including the soon-to-be-acquired Merrill Lynch.

Paulson wanted healthy institutions that did not necessarily need capital from the government to participate in the program first to remove any stigma that might be associated with a bailout. He told reporters during a news conference that the intervention was “what we must do to restore confidence in our financial system.”

[KnightofChrist]

Treasury CEO Talking Points

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15402995/Treasury-CEO-Talking-Points

[Socrates]

The government should neither redistribute the wealth of nor "bail-out" private businesses.

National socialism is here, folks.

[rkwright]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='23 October 2009 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1256345045' post='1990424']
Thank you. But I do still see this a a violation of the Constitution. Where is the clause in the Constitution that gives the Government the right to own private companies? This is just another example of run away spending, and unconstitutional law.


[url="http://www.freedomworks.org/tarp"]New Report: The TARP is Unconstitutional[/url]

Our government is based on the separation of powers. This means, as the Constitution states, that "All legislative Powers" are "vested in a Congress of the United States" and cannot be delegated to the executive branch. A new legal brief finds that the broad authority of the TARP "Wall Street bailout" legislation violates this legal doctrine and is unconstitutional.

On October 3, 2008, Congress wrote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson a blank check— for $700 billion, which amounts to a quarter of the entire federal budget last year. Awash with fear of an impending financial crisis, Congress enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 ("EESA"), giving the Secretary staggering and unprecedented power to create the TARP program and intervene directly in our nation's economy.

BREAKING: This Analysis Featured in [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16challenge.html?ref=us"]the New York Times[/url].

When Congress debated this "Wall Street bailout" bill and explained it to the American people, most expected the Secretary would use his newly acquired authority to purchase "troubled" mortgage-related assets from major banks who were, in the catchword of the moment, "too big to fail." But with blank check in hand, the Secretary almost immediately began to spend it differently. Sec. Paulson has funneled tax dollars to banks both large and small, both troubled and healthy, and to non-bank institutions such as auto lenders and insurers. Further, instead of purchasing troubled assets, he has purchased direct equity stakes in these various institutions.

Putting aside any merits of these various actions, the process should raise alarm. The Secretary was enabled to stray from the originally envisioned approach because EESA granted him enormous power with very few limits on his discretion. In our view, EESA violates the core principle, rooted in the Constitution’s separation of powers, that Congress may not delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch.

The full legal brief explains the importance of the "nondelegation" principle to our constitutional system and concludes that EESA unconstitutionally violates that principle by delegating such a broad lawmaking power to the Secretary.
Read the legal analysis

[url="http://www.freedomworks.org/files/policyanalysis.pdf"]StudyDownload[/url] a .pdf of the full report (2 MB)

"EESA violates the core principle, rooted in the Constitution's separation of powers, that Congress may not delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch."

FreedomWorks Foundation analysis of the legal and constitutional issues with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA)-- the TARP legislation.

File Attachments

[url="http://www.freedomworks.org/files/policyanalysis.pdf"]policyanalysis.pdf[/url]
[/quote]

Not sure who did this work, but obviously they are not aware that there are a great many of "legislative" bodies within the executive branch. Administrative agency's (some call them the fourth branch) have legislative and judicial powers. Congress often delegates legislative powers to agencies and the executive departments (including the treasury department). They all get their funding from congress, often with little to no oversight.

The standard for improper delegation is ""'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"

Edited October 24, 2009 by rkwright

[KnightofChrist]

More reasoning that it is Unconstitutional.

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2200817/"]Wall Street StripIs Paulson's bailout bill unconstitutional?[/url]
By Rod SmollaPosted Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2008, at 1:43 PM ET.

Does the Constitution have any role in the intense debate and blowback surrounding Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion bailout proposal? There is nothing in our founding document that prohibits taxing Peter (us) to pay Paul (Wall Street). There are constitutional principles, however, that speak to values such as oversight and transparency. Our system of checks and balances abhors a blank check.


And yet Secretary Paulson's proposal contains a sweeping provision that utterly strips the courts of any power to review his decisions. Section 8 of the Paulson proposal reads: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

In contrast, an alternative bailout bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, has a very different clause. The Dodd proposal reads: "Any determination by the Secretary with regard to any particular troubled asset pursuant to this Act … shall not be set aside unless such determination is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law." In other words, the Treasury secretary's determinations can be challenged on legal grounds. The Dodd version goes on to recite that "the terms of a residential mortgage loan that is part of any purchase by the Secretary under this Act shall remain subject to all claims and defenses that would otherwise apply notwithstanding the exercise of authority by the Secretary or Corporation under this Act."


How do these two alternatives stack up, constitutionally speaking? In Paulson's defense, there is no absolute constitutional prohibition on so-called "court-stripping" laws—provisions that bar judicial review of decisions by executive-branch officials. To the contrary, there is explicit language in the text of the Constitution that appears to grant Congress authority to control the jurisdiction of federal courts. The Constitution's Exceptions Clause describes the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, with the trailing language, "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." And the lower federal courts are entirely creatures of Congress: The Constitution only created the Supreme Court, leaving to the legislature the option to create lower courts as it deemed wise. The greater power to bring lower federal courts into existence implies the lesser power to place limits on the scope of cases they may hear. Finally, the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law the supreme law of the land, trumping state laws, presumably gives Congress the power to insulate from state-court scrutiny the actions of federal officials who are enforcing laws passed by Congress.

It's relatively rare for Congress to pass laws stripping courts of all power to review actions of administrative agencies. But it does happen from time to time, and courts have upheld some of these laws. On the other hand, courts are especially skeptical of laws that preclude judicial review of claimed violations of constitutional rights. For example, the Supreme Court's decision this summer involving the Guantanamo Bay detainees, Boumediene v. Bush, held that the Bush administration's effort to deny the detainees access to federal court by taking away their right to the writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. In Boumediene, the court could rely on specific language in the Constitution's Suspension Clause, which forbids suspension of the writ except when "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2200817/pagenum/2"]continue[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' date='23 October 2009 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1256350941' post='1990457']
Not sure who did this work, but obviously they are not aware that there are a great many of "legislative" bodies within the executive branch. Administrative agency's (some call them the fourth branch) have legislative and judicial powers. Congress often delegates legislative powers to agencies and the executive departments (including the treasury department). They all get their funding from congress, often with little to no oversight.

The standard for improper delegation is ""'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"
[/quote]

I assumed from your first post in this thread you did not support what happened and what is happening with the TARP companies. But now I am unsure. Are you arguing that what you called socialism in constitutional? If you do not support the TARP money being given, nor support the control the government is enforcing over the free market, why are we debating? Can't you offer your own evidence to support your stance?