The Glade 4.0

Should they have gotten emergency funds paid for by taxes?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

If that's how the Board approved of those funds being dispersed, yes. If we, the taxpayers, had a problem with that, we could stop bailing them out, and/or vote differently on the Board (through our proxies that hold the large quantities of shares including the little bits that are, in effect, our own, such as the government in this case).

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Except for the inconvient fact that distribuing such funds (the Board approving those funds to be dispered makes no sense) are in violation of the letter of the law. And voting differently through proxies which own company common stock is also a violation of the law, as it Unconstitutional for for the government to function in that capacity.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Eh? The government holds common stock in these companies. That's how the bailout worked, yes? Thus, it gets a commensurate number of votes.

Also, who's supposed to authorize executive compensation? Where I come from, that's the Board.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It's Unconstitutional for the government and by extension, the general population through Congress, to own stock in a private company.

Thus, that it gets to vote is immaterial; it is neither "right" or "wrong". If I bring a gun to the next board meeting of Merryll-Lunch/BoA and tell them to vote a certain way, it doesn't matter that the Board has the authority to execute certain compnay matters.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

It is not unconstitutional for the government to hold stock in a private company.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Nowhere does it say Congress may lay and collect taxes with the use to buy equity in private entities.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

And thus by the 10th amendment it is Unconstitutional for the Federal Government of These United States to do such.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

False. It says Congress can lay taxes; it doesn't place any limits on what those taxes can be used for. There doesn't need to be a specific power for each and every thing that Congress would spend money on. It also isn't limited to spending money on the powers its already granted, and even if it did, purchasing parts of private companies might still fall under regulation of interstate commerce.

If you want Congress to be limited to spending money on things it is empowered to regulate, you need a Constitutional Ammendment. Otherwise, the letter of the law contains no such limitation, and precedent is that they can do so. That doesn't mean it's good that they can or that they should, but they are not violating the Constitution by doing so, 10th ammendment included.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Therefore, anything not enumerated to it by The Constitution is forbidden. Otherwise, the specific enumerations such as:



Would be redundant and meaningless. The addition of specifically worded amendments, such as The Sixteenth is testament to this interpretation of Constitution.

The only thing I might agree on is "Interstate Commerce":



However, there are two reasons why I believe this clause should not be construed to mean as some interpret it to be today: one, Prohibition. If this clause was so all-encompassing, then there would have been no need for the Eigthteenth and subsequently, the Twenty-First. Secondly, this was a bailout that targeted many business, probably all of which dealt with business among states other than the one in which they are headquaurted. But just the same, there never is any language or discussion limiting this "elastic" clause to be limited to only those types of entities; it is oftentimes applied universally without acknowledgement of this explicit exception even though it may rarely, if ever, be applicable. Were it to mean something else, then why say interstate Commerce at all? Why not just give the government the power to regulate all commerce if this clause was intended for that use?

I posit it was not.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Don't get me started (again) on the interstate commerce clause being twisted in Wickard v Filburn.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

None of which matter. The power to lay taxes is specifically granted, which necessarily grants the power to spend, or there would be no reason to allow collection of taxes. There is also the fact tht "promote the general welfare" is an enumerated power, and the argument that it simply gives a reason for the other pwoers to exist is purely self-serving; there is nothing in the text to indicate this is the case.

None of the powers of Congress is dependant on any other, including the power to tax. They can be used in conjunction, but none enjoy any special limitations.



The main reason for the Eighteenth Ammendment was to deny the Federal Government the power to overturn it. That's the reason why we see things like gambling as ammendments to state constitutions today; so that state legislatures cannot do anything about it.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in the Constitution that disallows the Federal Government from spending tax money on purchasing private companies. Now, if you want tosay that there should be something preventing that, I'd probably agree. I'd even agree that spending should be limited to other powers, but there needs to be an ammendment specifically making that case, and I think a few other narrowly-defined powers would need to be added as part of the process.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The power to spend is only granted for the explicit powers granted to Congress under Article I section VIII.

If you believe otherwise then you also have to believe that there is no constraint at all on the Federal Government because they could spend that tax money on anything at all.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Fine, Arathain, I'm happy to protest the bailout's Constitutionality alongside you, but given that the government already *does* own common stock, it should behave exactly like other common stockholders can to protect their investments, rather than issue laws by fiat to do so.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

What, Kaffis? You don't like fascism?

_________________
The Dude abides.

This, as has already been pointed out, is not true. No such limitation on that power is expressed.



Non sequiter. The power to spend money does not mean the power to do anything at all. This is why Congress cannot directly mandate educational standards for the states, for example. It lacks the power to do so. It can withhold federal education money if states do not meet the conditions it wishes, but if they choose to go that route, the federal government may do nothing about it.

This does create a lot of de facto pressure, and is a good argument that the Constitution should be ammended to include such a limitation on spending, but as of now no such limitation exists.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes there is DE its called the 10th amendment.

" The power to spend money does not mean the power to do anything at all" - you should listen to yourself.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

As a taxpayer, I wholeheartedly endorse limiting executive compensation in those companies that have not yet paid us back for saving their butts. *shrug*

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Thereby ensuring the management leaves, the company fails under new, worse leadership, and we never get our money?


@ all:

I should point out that this isn't legislation being discussion. Legislation targeting the executives at 28 firms would be legislation seeking to punish specific individuals. That's called a bill of attainder, and is unconstitutional.

No, no; this is dictatorial mandate from an unelected bureaucrat (Bernanke or the pay czar, take your pick). Skirting the legislature skirts the prohibition on bills of attainder, and allows them to effectively pick out these 28 institutions for punishment.

Furthermore, the individuals at that level of a company are generally employed via contract. As such, creating mid-contract slashes in pay overrides hundreds of years of contract law in a foolhardy measure that will simultaneously undermine the entire contract law system.

Good luck with the whole "economic recovery" thing if people can't even enter a two-party contract without knowing whether Uncle Sam is going to come change the rules mid-stream.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I just wonder how much more fascism its going to take before we get fed up with it and try the lot of them.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Again with the godwins.

Just to get this straight -

Companies get bailed out because they were idiots and created a bunch of financial products that didnt hold water in order to get very very rich, quickly. These irresponsible decisions led directly to a massive market crash that affected every person in this country, and had dire consequences around the world.

Sick as it made us, we bailed them out because letting them crash would have caused an economic depression that would have done significantly *more* harm.

And now, it's facism to not allow the executives of the companies that *haven't* paid us back to obscenely compensate themselves.

They are on our life support system. If one of their clients had not paid their bills, they would garnish their wages and go after them tooth and claw until they got paid.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

You need to understand what Godwin's Law is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Nazi's or Hitler were not the only fascists. You would have any comparison to fascism - which I hope you understand is a real not a mythical philosophy on how government should operate - and then dismiss it with a "again with the godwins". Now I know this is your OP but the new rules should make you want to stop doing this because , as you've seen, you keep looking like a fool to everyone who is reading.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Which doesn't have anything to do with this case. The power to tax is explicitly granted, necessarily includes the power to spend, and isn't limited in the text.



I see you're resorting to your usual tactic of simply ignoring what I'm saying, repeating yourself, and trying to use clever rhetorical tricks. The only advantage of this tactic when you use it over others who do is the clever rhetorical tricks. At elast it's more entertaining.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Do you have a response to the meat of my post? Because frankly, when people bring up facism, they are bringing up the Nazis even if they don't intend to. Just like the confederate flag is rightly associated with slavery, facism and Nazi germany are inextricably bound.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

How hard can it be for you to understand that the power to spend is regulated only to those functions explicitly granted.

It isn't a trick anymore than pointing out the utter absurdity of your argument is a "trick".

You believe the government can go beyond its restrictions in article I Section VIII and the 10th amendment because it has the power to spend - well logically speaking if that were so it could override any restriction - not just the ones that you think it can. That is what you're ignoring and when set against the obvious case that the Constitution was designed as a restrictive document it negates your premise. So when you take them together your premise is incorrect and your argument is contradictory with your own opinions regarding other limits on the Federal Government.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville