Some Ask if Bailout Is Unconstitutional.

[elleng]

Source: NYTimes

'The FreedomWorks Foundation, which was founded in 1984 and declares itself to be “leading the fight for lower taxes, less government and more freedom,” says it plans to file a lawsuit against the (bailout) program.

The group’s chairman is Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader. A memorandum the group distributed to Congress on Thursday laid out its argument that “when Congress delegates so much authority to the executive branch with so few rules to guide its discretion, Congress unconstitutionally transfers its lawmaking power to the executive.”

The bailout’s sheer size, the memorandum states, takes it beyond the realm of other Congressional delegations of authority that have been found constitutional. “As far as we can tell, Congress has never delegated so much power to an executive agency with so little to constrain the agency’s discretion,” the memorandum concluded, calling the result “a classic violation of the nondelegation principle.”' >>>





Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16challenge.html?th&emc=th

[Lasher]

1. Funny how Armey got so concerned about executive power all of a sudden.

I wonder if this is the same bunch of people who think income taxes are unconstitutional?

[melm00se]

16. republican

or no, the question is a valid one:

Does the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 further breakdown the separation of powers and does Congress have that right/ability?

Furthermore: once something is written into the Constitution via the Constitutional amendment process laid out in Article 5 of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

it becomes, by definition, Constitutional.

So, with the passage of the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

an federally leveled income tax became Constitutional.

[Chulanowa]

2. Dick must've been asleep for 2001 - 2003

"Congress has never delegated so much power to an executive agency" my big brown ass! I guess when it's dollars getting wasted instead of people, that's when Dick-arm gets pissed.

[Demeter]

3. If there Were a Stupidity clause in the Constitution, Yes

We need a Stupidity Clause. It would keep the GOP from ever coming back to power.

[truedelphi]

22. Actually there were more Republicans aware of the dangers of the BailOut Bill

Than there were Democrats.

It was the democrats that pushed for the BailOut Bill.

And even those who initially showed the courage not to vote for it, like Lynn Woolsey of Marin County, CA, caved in the second time around.

[Fearless]

4. Libertarianism...

The idea that if all the safety nets are removed from society that you will do better than everyone else regardless of the fact that there are already plenty of people who don't use the safety nets in the first place.

:eyes:

[TomClash]

5. I have a pithy definition

Liberty without justice for all.

[Odin2005]

12. Libertarians = Anarchists that want police protection from their slaves.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

6. I don't care in Bin Laden himself wants to lead the charge

The bailouts have to be stopped, this is the largest theft of state wealth since gangsters stole the entire industrial base on the Soviet Union in a matter of months.

[Fearless]

19. Bailouts have a purpose...

For better or worse. If you do want those companies to fail, then there's nothing else to be said. However if you believe that the workers deserve to maintain their jobs etc. then we continue.... The bailout is the first of a two pronged attack on the recession. First we solidify the economic base of this nation and then we grow it using Obama's job creation programs. If we don't have a good base, then like it or not we'll have to create even more jobs, taking longer and further draining the economic resources of this nation's federal banking system-- they print more money in the long run and we have greater inflation.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

24. I think alot of these companies NEED to fail

The problem with the US economy is that there has been no meaningful anti-trust actions in decades and that has allowed unlimited consolidation that has served only to create giant dysfunctional corporations and financial institutions that are "too large to fail".

There are two giant problems with this, it creates zombie corporations that have basically no value, few prospects and are capable of only crushing or taking over smaller American upstarts. A dead and rotting elephant can still crush a healthy man to death. So rather than new competitors over-taking their fading rivals - they are crushed by the rotting elphant who can crush a thousand American rivals without really improving their viability. But because the said rotting elephant has so many workers it can then put a gun to the head of the treasury and be "bailed out" which also does little to improve their viability other than giving them more time to crush their US based rivals.

As long as the US economy has to suffer for the preservation of worthless corporations and financial instutions we can never recover healthy industries that need to develop organically.

[Fearless]

25. If the companies fail inflation will be worse as will the recession turn into an actual depression.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

26. a depression Is inevitable

There is nothing to be gained by strapping on another few trillion dollars in debt to support companies that have been rotten to the core for decades and will never return to health. It along with the corporate bankruptcy system just allows the rotten elephants monopolists of the world to asphyxiate their industries.

[Fearless]

27. Nothing is inevitible that is just foolishness.

You are simply unwilling to accept that one can be avoided by retaining the big business status quo. In a perfect world, I would agree that they should fail. But this is the real world and millions will be adversely affected if they do. I will not accept that.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

28. millions will be affected no matter what happens,

the question is how badly is the US going to impoverish itself to support the LEAST productive sectors of the economy when the material benefits of it will be minimal to non-existant.

The US is where it is today because of the corporate raider paradigm that saw executives willing to completely dismantle, demolish and loot their employer for personal gain. This isn't because of globalization, it isn't because of unions, it isn't because of regulations. It ie because the present generation of management enriching themselves and privillaged shareholders even at the cost of the total destruction of the company.

A "one time bailout" can't save companies that have been rotting since the 1970's

[Fearless]

30. This one time bailout is simply to settle the economic jitters that we're undergoing.

It has worked for the last couple of months. It will work again. However, now that Obama is president (or will be) he will institute plans to create jobs which will take over that stabilizing process. However we need it to remain stable in the time being before those jobs are made. If we don't, then we will face an economic collapse FAR worse than any we will if we do.

I don't care if you believe that the bailout is wrong or right. It doesn't matter in reality if it is wrong or right for any ideological reasons. It is right because we need to keep people in jobs to stop this bleeding economic from becoming catatonic. If we don't, we will see a depression the likes of which you cannot yet imagine. Think Haiti.

[struggle4progress]

7. In fact, the mechanism for release of the second $350 billion is certainly unconstitutional

[elleng]

8. Explain,

please.

[struggle4progress]

9. Apologies. I misremembered the Section 115 "Graduated Authorization to Purchase" provision

(a) Authority. -- The authority of the Secretary to purchase troubled assets under this Act shall be limited as follows: ... (3) If, at any time after the certification in paragraph (2) has been made, the President transmits to the Congress a written report detailing the plan of the Secretary to exercise the authority under this paragraph, unless there is enacted, within 15 calendar days of such transmission, a joint resolution described in subsection (c), effective upon the expiration of such 15-day period, such authority shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

as requiring a concurrent, rather than a joint, resolution. So my objection was bullshit

[elleng]

10. Don't say 'bullshit,' too much of that around!

You were 'mistaken!' And admirable for getting into this stuff so deeply! THANKS!

[Alcibiades]

11. Why does Dick Armey & Co. get to take ownership

of this issue? This is a Republicon bailout, proposed by a Republicon administration. The fact that many Dems were dumb enough to vote for it is immaterial.

Republicans take money from working people and give it to millionaires. That's the bottom line we need to keep folks from forgetting what the Republicans are all about. Like my Granny always says "The Republicans are the rich man's party." Always have been, always will be.

[Romulox]

13. Obama owns this bailout in 4 days. That was part of the quid pro quo:

Pubs got to pay off their cronies with the first $350 B. Now the Dems get to pay off their cronies with the second.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. So the first set of cronies get paid twice?

:shrug:

[Alcibiades]

18. How do I get crony status?

It seems to be pretty sweet.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

20. Dems dumb or complicit?

I think the latter, myself...

[4dsc]

15. I say YES its unconstitutional

They have created a 4th branch of government with the Treasury and Federal reserve.. They are printing and creating their own money and lending it to banks.. This is very unconstitutional if you ask me..

[nichomachus]

21. Well, just put it in the "unconstitutional" pile

It will have to take it's place at the end of a long line of unconstitutional things we need to deal with -- beginning with the Supreme Court coup on Dec. 12, 2000. After that, it was something like one unconstitutional thing a day. Should we fix them in chronological order or just pull names out of a hat?

[depakid]

23. Those same sorts of arguments were used gainst the New Deal

and ultimately failed.

Indeed one can argue that this is precisely the dort of situation that require a broad delegation of authority- highly technical matters that have to accomplished quickly in order to respond to rapidly changing circumstances.

Congress simply didn't have the ability to respond in a timely manner to all of the particular circumstances, especially in the midst of a presidential election cycle.

[RJ Connors]

17. Well more than likely it is

But these days, that would make a difference in exactly what way?

[high density]

29. So giving the executive branch blank checks to fight offshore war: OK

Giving the executive branch blank checks to stave off domestic financial ruin: Unconstitutional

Got it. That Repube logic is great.