Can't the Supreme Court turn down this bill?

[AJ Antimony]

Just wondering. I mean it's so blatantly unconstitutional you'd think this is one even the Supreme Court wouldn't miss. Is there any chance they will rule this Act unconstitutional?

[NEPA_Revolution]

I pray that they do and they can.

[Goldwater64]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/22/judicial-oversight-of-the-bailout-plan-fuggedaboudit/

"If the Bush administration has its way, anyone harmed by the Treasury Department’s handling of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout might have no remedy. . .The effort to block court review reminded some congressional staffers of the Bush administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when it issued language and took steps to keep judges from second-guessing decisions about wiretapping and detention of suspected enemy agents. . .In that crisis, and apparently in this one, the administration argued that exposing to court review actions made on the fly would deter officials from taking risks and responding quickly."

This would be the only real chance:

"a court might hear a constitutional claim, such as allegations that the method of deciding who gets paid or how much assets are worth violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause."

[Feelgood]

Courts are in on it...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=158898

[Kludge]

It isn't unconstitutional under the Supreme Court ruling which created the "elastic clause".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary-and-proper_clause

[Menthol Patch]

It is unconstitutional.

[Kludge]

It is unconstitutional.

I am a trillionaire.

[Dequeant]

That'd be one seriously badass class-action lawsuit.

[Menthol Patch]

I am a trillionaire.

No your not.

The fact is that no where in the constitution does it authorize congress to bail out private institutions.

[Goldwater64]

It isn't unconstitutional under the Supreme Court ruling which created the "elastic clause".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary-and-proper_clause

As a whole this may be true, but "as written" certain parts of it really could run afoul of due process. I'd be pretty willing to wager that 5 - 10 years down the line, part of the bailout bill is eventually ruled against...of course by then it won't really matter except for future precedent.

[Kludge]

No your not.

The fact is that no where in the constitution does it authorize congress to bail out private institutions.


The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Article One of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution), section 8, clause 18:

[Menthol Patch]

No where in the constitution does it state that the government has the authority to use taxpayer dollars to bailout private banks.

End of Debate

[Menthol Patch]

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Article One of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution), section 8, clause 18:

That clause is totally meaningless. It could be used to execute everyone in the entire country that eats ice cream.

No where in the constitution does it state the government has the right to bail out private banks and other institutions.

[Menthol Patch]

Kludge, let me guess... you think since that claus exists that the government has the right to do anything it wants.

[Kludge]

That clause is totally meaningless. It could be used to execute everyone in the entire country that eats ice cream.

No where in the constitution does it state the government has the right to bail out private banks and other institutions.

The Supreme Court declared its meaning, that the congress may create whatever law it pleases if it relates at all with the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

There are so many laws now using the ruling of that case that the entire government would be tied up in legislation for decades figuring out wtf to do, and with the Justices on now, there is no chance they'd overturn the ruling.

[Kludge]

Kludge, let me guess... you think since that claus exists that the government has the right to do anything it wants.

I dislike the current Constitution and think it allows for much of the tyranny we see today (although it has also prevented much, much more). That said, the government set forth in the Constitution has permitted for the Supreme Court (based on the Supreme Court's own ruling) to allow Congress to do wtf it pleases so long as they claim it connects with the economy.

[Goldwater64]

No where in the constitution does it state that the government has the authority to use taxpayer dollars to bailout private banks.

End of Debate

No. Not exactly, but the bill is still unconstitutional for other reasons.

Our system of law uses the Anglo-American idea of stare decisis: the interpretation of law (like the Constitution) is formed by past judicial decisions. Past judicial decisions (perhaps incorrect, but none the less binding) have interpreted the Constitution to allow payments like the bailout.

What they have NOT allowed is language like the bailout will likely include giving the Sec. of the Treasury carte blanche to do what he wants.

The NY Times said the plan is the financial equivalent of the Patriot Act. They very well may be right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23sorkin.html?em

[OferNave]

As Kludge pointed out, the Supreme Court is NOT YOUR FRIEND. They were never supposed to have the power to upheld or overturn laws based on Constitutionality - this is called Judicial Supremacy, and it is evil and unconstitutional in itself. This is how they subverted the Constitution, by using the Supreme Court as an accessory. The SC *does not have this authority*.

You know who has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional? We do. Only us, and only by voting our the congress persons who supported it. All the SC is supposed to decide is the guilt or innocent of the defendant in a particular case. That's it.

[Goldwater64]

The Supreme Court declared its meaning, that the congress may create whatever law it pleases if it relates at all with the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

There are so many laws now using the ruling of that case that the entire government would be tied up in legislation for decades figuring out wtf to do, and with the Justices on now, there is no chance they'd overturn the ruling.

Well, it's McCulloch combined with interstate commerce jurisprudence like Wickard, but yeah basically.

Still, the bill says this...“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,” the original draft of the proposed bill says.

^^^^That ain't cool (or constitutional.)

[Goldwater64]

All the SC is supposed to decide is the guilt or innocent of the defendant in a particular case. That's it.


Really? I'm pretty sure the SC is very expressly given power in the Constitution over a quite a few civil cases. So, um, wrong.

And arguing that Marbury is wrongly decided? Really?

[AJ Antimony]

As Kludge pointed out, the Supreme Court is NOT YOUR FRIEND. They were never supposed to have the power to upheld or overturn laws based on Constitutionality - this is called Judicial Supremacy, and it is evil and unconstitutional in itself. This is how they subverted the Constitution, by using the Supreme Court as an accessory. The SC *does not have this authority*.

You know who has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional? We do. Only us, and only by voting our the congress persons who supported it. All the SC is supposed to decide is the guilt or innocent of the defendant in a particular case. That's it.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment and against Bush's Military Commissions Act.

They've been more friendly to me than any other branch of government in recent history.

[Alawn]

Really? I'm pretty sure the SC is very expressly given power in the Constitution over a quite a few civil cases. So, um, wrong.

And arguing that Marbury is wrongly decided? Really?

The Constitution does not ever expressly give the SC the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. This was implied by the SC in Marbury v. Madison. People were really mad at the time because they thought the court gave themselves a huge new power.

[erika]

As a whole this may be true, but "as written" certain parts of it really could run afoul of due process. I'd be pretty willing to wager that 5 - 10 years down the line, part of the bailout bill is eventually ruled against...of course by then it won't really matter except for future precedent.

He's an idiot. He uses marxist wikipedia as his truth magnet. Any loser can modify or put up what they want their.

[erika]

no where in the constitution does it state that the government has the authority to use taxpayer dollars to bailout private banks.

End of debate

+1776

[erika]

Kludge, let me guess... you think since that claus exists that the government has the right to do anything it wants.

well said

[Kludge]

We ought to go get some coffee together sometime, Erika.

[Rangeley]

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Article One of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution), section 8, clause 18:
That gives congress the power to make the laws necessary to carry out the other powers enumerated above it. Which of the enumerated powers would this bailout law be necessary for?

[Goldwater64]

The Constitution does not ever expressly give the SC the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. This was implied by the SC in Marbury v. Madison. People were really mad at the time because they thought the court gave themselves a huge new power.

Yes, I know, but correct me if I'm wrong on this, isnt the alternative to Marbury executive supremecy?

[Goldwater64]

That gives congress the power to make the laws necessary to carry out the other powers enumerated above it. Which of the enumerated powers would this bailout law be necessary for?

Interstate Commerce.

The bailout bill still violates due process though.

[Ex Post Facto]

It seems to me the mere existance of the language "not reviewable by any court" is unconstitutional. Thats like the legislature writing a bill that says "Bush is King and the check and balance system is abolished" Oh wait...they've already done that.

[Goldwater64]

It seems to me the mere existance of the language "not reviewable by any court" is unconstitutional. Thats like the legislature writing a bill that says "Bush is King and the check and balance system is abolished" Oh wait...they've already done that.

Yep.

[anaconda]

Just wondering. I mean it's so blatantly unconstitutional you'd think this is one even the Supreme Court wouldn't miss. Is there any chance they will rule this Act unconstitutional?

We've lost the courts to corruption. All of the appointees lately are part of the coup to hand as much power to the Executive branch as humanly possible.

[TGautier421]

Bush recently appointed two Supreme Court Justices.

[AJ Antimony]

Bush recently appointed two Supreme Court Justices.

So? The SC still struck down his Military Commissions Act.

[Alawn]

Yes, I know, but correct me if I'm wrong on this, isnt the alternative to Marbury executive supremecy?

The alternative is legislative supremacy. Obviously congress would do whatever the heck it wanted if there was no way to review it. There is no real point in arguing over whether the SC has this power because they will never give it up.

The SC does not even try to follow the constitution anymore. For every 1 unconstitutional law they strike down they uphold hundreds or just refuse to hear it. They say whatever they want and then just claim that is what it really means no matter what the plain language says. It is a joke reading their opinions.

[TGautier421]

So? The SC still struck down his Military Commissions Act.

Wasn't making a point, just stating a fact.

What would be interesting, would be if a State or two sued the Government on these grounds.

[AJ Antimony]

Wasn't making a point, just stating a fact.

What would be interesting, would be if a State or two sued the Government on these grounds.

Montana! Alaska! I'm looking in your direction!