Paulson's Bailout Proposal Constitutional?

[reillyluck]

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson draft proposal for the bailout of struggling financial services firms sought to make himself the most powerful unelected official in American history. This attempt to protect the CEOs of wall street should not stand. See article in Yahoo News.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080923/cm_thenation/1363351&printer=1;_ylt=AljDYrn9hR433xHCiRFrxWc__8QF

Section 8 of his proposal, which read: "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."

Please write to your congressmen and tell them not to vote for Paulson's proposal. Only your letters will stop this unconstitutional power grab.



I do not normally send this kind of thing unless I feel there is a major problem with it. I just called my representatives office and spoke up.
If you live in Hudson/Bergen County, your Rep. is Congressman Rothman, his info can be found at:

https://forms.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep

Call his office and let them know you do not want him to vote for this proposal for the bailout of wall street.
If you do not live in those counties, you can easily find your congressman by punching in your zip code at this website:

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml


People, this proposal is for 700 billion dollars!!! Our money can no longer go to these corporations without
our say. Please take 2 minutes out of your day. If you have time to go to TMZ or Perez Hilton, you have time for this.

[EliSnow]

I don't know. I think we may need some of this proposal, but the part where it says that his decisions are not reviewable by anyone is an obvious unconstitutional provision. One of the underlying principles of our government is that there is a check/balance to everything the government does.

[TheMojoPin]

WHAT'S THIS?!? Some dizzy dame starting a thread in MY forum?!? HA-RUMPH!!! I NEVER.

[reillyluck]

WHAT'S THIS?!? Som dizzy dame starting a thread in MY forum?!? HA-RUMPH!!! I NEVER.

:lol: just call the congressman. Wind boy.

i usually just laugh from afar from those silly political arguments.

[Freitag]

Section 8 of his proposal, which read: "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."

Please write to your congressmen and tell them not to vote for Paulson's proposal. Only your letters will stop this unconstitutional power grab.


I agree. We don't want people in camoflauge masks running around in The Treasury!

[Don Stugots]

STOP SECTION 8! We don't want people in camoflauge masks running around in treasury!

he will 8 chop the economy into submission.

[Freakshow]

WHAT'S THIS?!? Some dizzy dame starting a thread in MY forum?!? HA-RUMPH!!! I NEVER.

Aparently it's actually a wrestling thread...

[Dingbat_Charlie]

what? a Bush plan that gives one of his flunkies unprecedented power? I refuse to believe it.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Back in February someone did outline this whole mess. in his piece in the washington post some choice excerpts include:

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer of this piece is Elliot Spitzer.

Three weeks or so after writing this it was coincidentally discovered his actions with prostitutes. you tell me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

[oldladyfacepuncher]

I can't find it now, but I came across an article a couple days ago, that said this has been done before during the Depression, and the courts upheld it. Something about it being an executive order instead of a law, therefore it can be nonreviewable. Maybe a lawyer could track it down the precedent for us. I'd like to read it.

This makes it all the more important for you to contact your reps, if you don't like it.

[reillyluck]

Back in February someone did outline this whole mess. in his piece in the washington post some choice excerpts include:

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer of this piece is Elliot Spitzer.

Three weeks or so after writing this it was coincidentally discovered his actions with prostitutes. you tell me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Funny how after months of investigating, they choose that time to release the info.

Good ole’ government

[epo]

The writer of this piece is Elliot Spitzer.

Three weeks or so after writing this it was coincidentally discovered his actions with prostitutes. you tell me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Spitzer was a dangerous man to the status quo.

[EliSnow]

I can't find it now, but I came across an article a couple days ago, that said this has been done before during the Depression, and the courts upheld it. Something about it being an executive order instead of a law, therefore it can be nonreviewable. Maybe a lawyer could track it down the precedent for us. I'd like to read it.

This makes it all the more important for you to contact your reps, if you don't like it.

Just because the courts permitted something in the past doesn't mean they would do so again in the future. Look at the caselaw re: school segregation.

However, I do believe that there is precedent for the Supreme Court to permit certain things during emergencies that it wouldn't do during ordinary periods. However, that's a very dangerous precedent to follow. Hell, the reason Hitler took over the german government, remaking it from a republic into a dictatorship, was that the Weimar Constitution permitted Hitler to have certain powers in emergenices. Once he had those powers, he never gave them up. Same thing happened with Senator Palpatine and the Republic. :wink:

Now what's happening here isn't exactly at that level of danger, but it's still a troubling thing to do.

[DarkHippie]

Spitzer was a dangerous man to the status quo.

too bad his flaw was so sexy

[Knowledged_one]

too bad his flaw was so sexy

:thumbup: :lol: :lol: :thumbup:

good one

[Thebazile78]

Just because the courts permitted something in the past doesn't mean they would do so again in the future. Look at the caselaw re: school segregation.

However, I do believe that there is precedent for the Supreme Court to permit certain things during emergencies that it wouldn't do during ordinary periods. However, that's a very dangerous precedent to follow. Hell, the reason Hitler took over the german government, remaking it from a republic into a dictatorship, was that the Weimar Constitution permitted Hitler to have certain powers in emergenices. Once he had those powers, he never gave them up. Same thing happened with Senator Palpatine and the Republic. :wink:

Now what's happening here isn't exactly at that level of danger, but it's still a troubling thing to do.


Waiting for a "clear and present danger"? Or would you rather wait until a "clear and imminent danger"? Who the frack are you? Oliver Wendell Holmes (Jr.)???

(OK, OK, OK, economics isn't the same as war, but a lot of governmental "wartime powers" and "Executive Orders" have been invoked and issued in the past ... 7 years ... and people haven't recognized it, either. IMO, you're spot-on with your allusions to Hitler & Palpatine.)

[Knowledged_one]

His name is Henry Paulson, his name is Henry Paulson

[EliSnow]

Waiting for a "clear and present danger"? Or would you rather wait until a "clear and imminent danger"? Who the frack are you? Oliver Wendell Holmes (Jr.)???



I really wasn't talking about those standards. What I meant about levels of danger were the types of powers being given over to the executive branch compared to the types of powers seized by Hitler. It's not like the bill would give the Treasury the ability to suspend habeas corpus, civil rights, or to be able to direct the military without congressional oversight, or to establish internment camps.

Also, although I acknowledge precedent for certain actions, I don't believe it means this bill is unconsitutional. During WWII, the Supreme Court okayed the internment of Japanese saying that because it was war/emergency, they were not going to review the executive's actions. I disagree with that ruling, although it is precedent.

[Thebazile78]

I really wasn't talking about those standards. What I meant about levels of danger were the types of powers being given over to the executive branch compared to the types of powers seized by Hitler. It's not like the bill would give the Treasury the ability to suspend habeas corpus, civil rights, or to be able to direct the military without congressional oversight, or to establish internment camps.

Also, although I acknowledge precedent for certain actions, I don't believe it means this bill is unconsitutional. During WWII, the Supreme Court okayed the internment of Japanese saying that because it was war/emergency, they were not going to review the executive's actions. I disagree with that ruling, although it is precedent.

Agreed, we're not giving the Treasury dep't those powers with this bailout and I think we are on the same page as to whether or not we agree with the lack of checks on Executive powers (we both don't) ... but I wanted a line drawn. The Treasury department may not be able to violate civil liberties under the proposed regulations, but making it another octopus-arm of the Executvie branch tars it with the same brush.

The bill itself isn't unconstitutional ... but I do have a problem with the lack of review by other branches in light of things like the internment camps. It's not like they're going to ship CEO's and CFO's off to New Mexico or anything (more likely allow them to bail out and depart to Grand Cayman before indictments come down) but it's among the poorer practices of the current administration.

Also, as for economic precedent, the Hoover government during the Depression bought up farm surpluses in an effort to prop up farm goods prices and then imposed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff on imports ... they didn't exactly work as intended.

I'm reluctant to wholeheartedly support a bailout of this magnitude. It strikes me as self-defeating and an incredibly risky move, but since I am not an economist my gut-feeling is not exactly backed up by solid research. (That most people here wouldn't read anyway.)

[Sinestro]

That's why when you cash you check, you stuff your matresses with it.

[oldladyfacepuncher]

Just because the courts permitted something in the past doesn't mean they would do so again in the future. Look at the caselaw re: school segregation.

However, I do believe that there is precedent for the Supreme Court to permit certain things during emergencies that it wouldn't do during ordinary periods. However, that's a very dangerous precedent to follow.


Yes. Point being, we cannot count on the judicial branch in this one. Write or call your reps, because once this thing goes through it's all over.

[Jujubees2]

His name is Henry Paulson, his name is Henry Paulson

Yeah but his friends call him Hank.

[Tallman388]

So are we contacting our representatives to not try to fix the economic problems or to make the bailout less? what's the deal?

[Thebazile78]

So are we contacting our representatives to not try to fix the economic problems or to make the bailout less? what's the deal?

Contact your representatives to overrule section 8 of the proposal and make the Treasurer answerable to Congress, rather than giving them carte blanche to do as they see fit.

[Tallman388]

Contact your representatives to overrule section 8 of the proposal and make the Treasurer answerable to Congress, rather than giving them carte blanche to do as they see fit.

what would congress do? slap him on the wrist? He is essentially in charge of money supply, even if the section is removed, they won't stop him.

[Thebazile78]

what would congress do? slap him on the wrist? He is essentially in charge of money supply, even if the section is removed, they won't stop him.

This is why we have a Congress. The Congress, as the Legislative branch, is one of the checks on Executive power. The other check is the Judicial branch. While Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court applies and interprets them (and ensures their constitutionality, which changes based on who's sitting on the Court and their POV of how the Constitution should be applied.)

The argument against Section 8 of this particular bill is one of extending powers never intended for the Treasurer to have.

If the bill is passed with this section intact, it extends Executive powers to the Secretary of the Treasury. Again, despite what Alexander Hamilton might have wanted to believe or how John Adams interpreted his actions, the Secretary of the Treasury was never intended to have unilateral, unchecked control over the economic outcome of the United States. Regulatory powers, sure, but not unchecked.

[Furtherman]

So are we contacting our representatives to not try to fix the economic problems or to make the bailout less? what's the deal?

I have no idea.

Did anyone see the Colbert Report last night. They had the financial adviser of the New York Times on to describe the bailout.

No. Fucking. Clue.

The man made no sense. No direct answers. When suggested that cutting taxes would give the common man more money to use towards the economy, he said that would be a bad idea because now-a-days it costs more money to cut taxes than to raise them.

:blink:


The video isn't on Youtube yet. But it's so frustrating. As long as I keep getting a paycheck, I'll be happy at this point.

[Thebazile78]

It's a moot point as of this afternoon.

The powers that be have spoken.

They have an outline but they're still hammering out the details. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown_929)

Yes, there will be a bailout.
How it'll happen has yet to be determined.

In other news, stocks rose slightly amid word of a bailout. So, maybe this thing will stabilize with less cost to the public. (I am not optimistic about that, but I'm having fun in la-la land right now. Sinus headaches are AWESOME for lack of clarity!)

[Furtherman]

The Dark Bailout

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R1X6RQLZtoA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R1X6RQLZtoA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>