and secure bond holders DEAL..Thats a huge victory!!!
they said theyre reviewing it because of how ''profoundly unconstitutional'' IT WAS DONE!!
You know thyere gonna review gm now!!!
I HOPE WE CAN GET ODRAMA INMPEACHED!!
I dont know whats up with people who still like him..HE IS BREAKING OUR CONSTITUTION..SINCE THE CONSTituion is nothing to some of you, even though its why you are free, and have been free..
IT STILL MEANS SOMETHING TO SOME OF US..
SUPREME COURT 1/ OBAMA ?
-- Modified on 6/8/2009 2:24:03 PM
-- Modified on 6/8/2009 2:28:07 PM
I understand that rational thinking may not be your strong suit, BUT...the Supreme Court has agreed to look into the issue. That's a far cry from an Obama defeat.
For the record, I'm pulling for the bondholders, but I don't think that they should spend their money yet.
YOU HEARD THE STORY IN ITS MOST FLOWERY VERSION,,
AND I HEARD JUDGE NAPALATANO SAY WHAT I JUST SAID..stop with the childish name calling..GROW UP- its not my fault your news spins stuff..
I'm not a CNN viewer, but more importantly, I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with a wing-nut. Gambler warned me, but I wouldn't listen.
Since I am an admitted Fox hater but the fact that TJ referenced it makes it all the worse.
Justice Ginsburg as Second Circuit overseer has simply stayed the specified bankruptcy orders pending further order by her, or the Supreme Court.
They could dissolve the stay tonight, keep it place for days, or grant certiorari to decide the case.
But if they take the latter course I doubt thy will say they are reviewing it bc it is "profoundly unconstitutional."
And from what I have read, the appellants are claiming violation of federal statutes, not the constitution.
the appellants have claimed that preferring junior claimants over senior bond holders is unconstitutional. I thought that was statutory and case law but they may be couching this a due process or impairment of contract violation.
So I was wrong on this statement:
"And from what I have read, the appellants are claiming violation of federal statutes, not the constitution."
Absolutely! Him and every other President since Abe Lincoln too!
Anyone familiar with the true history of "reconstruction" knows federal usurpations have been going on a very long time.
Let's see ...
The Patriot Act was unconstitutional IMO. Bush put it through. Dems hated it. But, then, their guy got elected, and now they are quiet. But that's not how it works: it was unconstitutional under Bush and its still unconstitutional under Obama.
Every Gun Control law passed pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Clause violates the 2nd Amendment except for MAYBE the 1934 National Firearms Act. Every president since 1934 has enforced those laws though.
How about our lovely "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" income redistribution schemes? There's no power for that in Article I, Section 8. So every President since FDR has been violating the constitution on that one ...
For a good overview of the solution, which does not involve removing the latest puppet from office, Thomas Jefferson was very informative in The Kentucky Resolution.
It's a LOT easier to concentrate resistance in a single state and secede than to try to reform our monstrosity of a self-serving Fedgov. Don't fight it -- withdraw from it. Secession is the ultimate withdrawal of sanction.
Impeaching Obama would do nothing more than put that pinko commie Biden in charge. Impeaching him would give us Pelosi. You could work through our whole federal bureaucracy and probably not find a single person (other than maybe Ron Paul) who understood the Constitution as Madison did, or the Bill of Rights as Jefferson did.
I say, follow Jefferson's advice.
I am unaware of any executive order by President Obama requiring enforcement of a law that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. If you know of one, please enlighten me.
Laws are presumed constitutional until a court rules otherwise and, with respect to federal laws, a law would not be deemed uniformly unconstitutional until the Supreme Court said so.
That LE continues to enforce federal laws that you believe are unconstitional does not mean that Mr.Obama is violating the Constitution. Subject to prosecutorial discretion, LE has a mandatory duty to enforce until the Supreme Court declares it invalid.
While it is true that the DOJ can decline to enforce certain laws in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion on grounds DOJ believes the law unconstitutional, the failure of DOJ to take such a position would not mean Mr. Obama is violating the Constitution.
Having said all that, I must sadly concede that I suspect Mr. Obama has violated a host of federal statutes and possibly the Constitution by continuing the Predator program in Afhganistan.
Strangely the media has given him a complete pass on that one and even Phil and RWU who usually hold him accountable for even the most minor transgressions have been asleep at the wheel on this one.
But we'll save that for another day.
I'm not at all confused.
I realize that there is a strong "procedural" structure to whether or not something constitutes "unconstitutional."
Very technically speaking, for example, if the Fedgov entered into a treaty with China to murder all Tibetans; that Treaty would override the rest of the Constitution, and it would be perfectly constitutional, from the perspective of structure and procedure, for our Fedgov to round up Tibetans and gas them. (For an example of this, look at the history of federal migratory waterfowl laws in the Supreme Court. The Fedgov can acquire new powers through a simple treaty.)
While it would, indeed, be structurally and procedurally Constitutional; it would be unconstitutional in terms of what any rational person would contemplate to have been the meaning and intent of the Constitution.
I realize something is procedurally "Constitutional" unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
That's why Abe Lincoln did what HE did to the Supreme Court. Recall?
So while I understand what you are saying, I think you misunderstand what I am saying.
Jefferson described it well in the Kentucky Resolution in noting that the Supreme Court is STILL a part of the Federal Government; and an entity (the fedgov) cannot be the sole arbiter of whether or not it is keeping the terms of the contract under which it was brought into existence. Rather, the other parties to that contract -- the states -- have every bit as much right to decide for themselves if the fedgov is keeping faith.
That's like you and I entering into an agreement where only I get to determine whether or not the terms have been breached.
So the idea of having a federal institution, that derives its salary from federal taxpayer money, be the sole arbiter of the compliance of the fedgov with the constitution is ridiculous.
People accept this, but they shouldn't.
do it,” but you’ll have to start your own country to do it your way.
In the United States, before we could have the states decide if the federal government is in compliance with the Constitution, you’d have to take your scissors and cut out Article III and Article VI from the Constitution and then toss that first volume of the United States Reports – the one that contains Marbury v. Madison – into the wastebasket.
Your contract analogy (“the other parties to that contract -- the states -- have every bit as much right to decide for themselves if the fedgov is keeping faith”) is creative but fails of its own merits bc you fail to realize that the states have already contracted with the federal court to abide by the very document that contains the Supremacy Clause and Article III. Having made this deal - and received several hundreds of years of consideration I might add –the states cannot unilaterally change the terms.
-- Modified on 6/9/2009 9:34:32 AM
Keep in mind -- the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation; which replaced the British gov.
Any subset of a larger political entity has both a right and a duty to either reform that entity if possible, or leave that entity if necessary, when the larger political entity has become destructive of the ends for which it was organized.
To repudiate this idea, is to repudiate the very basis under which we asserted our independence and deny the legitimacy of the government as it currently exists.
Of course, the way law works generally (though not in every respect) is on the basis of precedent; and the longer-established the precedent, the more difficult that is to change.
However, in the Western world there has been a long history of crazy precedent that might have made sense at the time, but is not so sensible now. (A good example is the 500 year old idea that if a child is born to a man's wife, he is responsible for that child even if it was conceived through adultery. Thankfully, in some places this is being re-done in light of modern technology.)
I should add that the Supreme Court has already said that if the government has been violating someone's rights -- even if that right has been of long standing and the person has not complained -- the government can still be set aright. So when it comes to "rights" precedents that would allow their violation don't apply the same way as others.
One thing I gotta say -- you're awfully sharp on this. I'll bust out a few books and get back to you because I don't believe that mere acceptance of a contractual clause automatically makes it valid and enforceable if the clause has other issues. (In an extreme case, pretend, a clause promising to commit a murder.)
My question is whether a clause saying that a contract can ONLY be interpreted by one party to that contract would be valid if all parties agreed to that clause. I really don't think it would be, because the fundamental of it is unsound. What do you think?
You and I can enter into a contract. One of the terms says that I am always superior to you, and the other says that only I get to determine when the contract has been broken. Would such a contract -- for me to provide you golf clubs or something -- be valid at all?
If A and B enter into a contract in which they agree that only A can determine if either party is in breach, that clause would not be enforceable (although the contract would remain valid unless the clause was not severable). With one exception, the parties can never oust the jurisdiction of the court in civil matters (the sole exception being agreement to an arbitration clause) and, of course, where criminal law is concerned what the parties agree to in their contract cannot affect how criminal law treats the deal (hence the invalidty of "I'm just charging for my time").
Apart from this, clauses that violate public policy are unenforcible – hence, you never see hit men suing in court if they are not paid (to use your murder example).
So, now that I think about it, I kind of understand your creative point if we treated the Constitution as solely a contract. But, of course, the Constitution is first and foremost a law and we cannot carry the contract analogy so far as to interfere with the supreme law of the land, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
On a final note you lost me with this one:
"I should add that the Supreme Court has already said that if the government has been violating someone's rights -- even if that right has been of long standing and the person has not complained -- the government can still be set aright."
Not sure what you are driving at here but I can assure you that exhaustion of remedies (this means you've got to complain fo many statutory violations) and statutes of limitation most certainly do apply when the government violates your rights. So you better complain, exhaust all administrative remedies, and file suit before the statute expires.
-- Modified on 6/9/2009 12:24:00 PM
but you may recall if I express the gist differently.
The gist was that, when it comes to explicitly recognized Constitutional rights, the fact that a person allowed those rights to be violated for a very long time does not mean those rights no longer exist -- they can still be asserted.
I'll run across it again eventually.
You are certainly correct that there are lots of limitations on the timing of collecting any damages related to the ordinance -- and rightly so!
But what I am saying is that, when it comes to the idea of adhering to precedent; one of the biggest exceptions pertains to the assertion of Constitutional rights. Even if they have been violated for a very long time, they haven't been surrendered.
That's what I'm getting at. Perhaps you recall the case? It was pretty famous but it slips my mind ...
Please tell us how Obama is violating the US Constitution by continuing the Predator program in Afhganistan.
it's because the corporate suits were deaf to what the consumers wanted & needed and chose rather to build what THEY wanted to build until their "too big to fail" company ended up needing draconian measures to save itself from extinction.
Over the last few months I've elected to be rather mute and simply observe how our new Commander n' Chief attempts to fix all the problems the previous administration created (or allowed to proliferate). From what I've observed the ONLY ideas/answers coming from the 'Right' are keeping the failed status quo, continued fear mongering, and saying "NO" to everything else.
Insanity = endlessly repeating the same action hoping or expecting a different re-action.
" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"
Considering what our forefathers said above in the Declaration of Independence the current "Right" would have had us STILL be a British colony.