[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Constitution question. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/30/2009 6:26:17 PM EDT
|
Where exactly does the Constitution grant the Pres. the authority to act as CEO of a publically traded company and force the "real" CEO to resign? Doesn't GM have a Board of Directors and stock holders who have some say in it's management and daily operation? As far as that goes does the Govt. have any authority to administer these "bailouts?'
Something about this whole mess just ain't right. 
|
|
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. 
|
|
Quoted:
Where exactly does the Constitution grant the Pres. the authority to act as CEO of a publically traded company and force the "real" CEO to resign? Doesn't GM have a Board of Directors and stock holders who have some say in it's management and daily operation? As far as that goes does the Govt. have any authority to administer these "bailouts?' Something about this whole mess just ain't right. You obviously haven't read enough Karl Marx, comrade. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. If say the IRS asks you to quit your job would you just say no? Sure they aren't forcing you to, but they are like the mob. Same thing. This president and the government is like the mob right now. You don't think Obama wouldn't have made his life a living hell through 'quasi legal' avenues if he reject his request? He improperly used his position of power on this issue. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. Quit with the logic in GD topics like this. It ruins all the fun of reading the responses. 
|
The govt cant run anything right....VA, MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, POSTAL SERVICE..And our wonderful leader hasnt run anything
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. If say the IRS asks you to quit your job would you just say no? Sure they aren't forcing you to, but they are like the mob. Same thing. This president and the government is like the mob right now. He improperly used his position of power on this issue. So, those of in this government... we're like "Goodfellahs?" Cool. I do have an Italian suit. I need to wear it more often. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where exactly does the Constitution grant the Pres. the authority to act as CEO of a publically traded company and force the "real" CEO to resign? Doesn't GM have a Board of Directors and stock holders who have some say in it's management and daily operation? As far as that goes does the Govt. have any authority to administer these "bailouts?' Something about this whole mess just ain't right. You obviously haven't read enough Karl Marx, comrade. Obviously ! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. From one DK to another, you're making too much sense for GD on a Monday night... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. If say the IRS asks you to quit your job would you just say no? Sure they aren't forcing you to, but they are like the mob. Same thing. This president and the government is like the mob right now. You don't think Obama wouldn't have made his life a living hell through 'quasi legal' avenues if he reject his request? That's not even remotely the same thing, because what you are describing is the government deciding to control the behavior of a private citizen out of the blue. The "same thing" here would be if I BEGGED THE IRS to give me a big deduction, or let me out of paying taxes or something, and the IRS agreed, but made me quite my job as a condition of getting the deal THAT I ASKED FOR. Obama didn't suddenly wake up and say "Hey, I think I want the hassle of trying to rescue some unprofitable companies that are saddled with huge legacy costs and piss-poor strategy" - he simply decided to put some conditions on giving them money that THEY ASKED him to give them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. That is some BS. Very good BS but BS none the less. I hear they need pundits on the View. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. If say the IRS asks you to quit your job would you just say no? Sure they aren't forcing you to, but they are like the mob. Same thing. This president and the government is like the mob right now. He improperly used his position of power on this issue. So, those of in this government... we're like "Goodfellahs?" Cool. I do have an Italian suit. I need to wear it more often. You work for the president or the Democrat Congress? 
It wouldn't surprise me to you you the truth.
|
|
Quoted:
Where exactly does the Constitution grant the Pres. the authority to act as CEO of a publically traded company and force the "real" CEO to resign? Doesn't GM have a Board of Directors and stock holders who have some say in it's management and daily operation? As far as that goes does the Govt. have any authority to administer these "bailouts?' Something about this whole mess just ain't right. The president doesn't have the autority but a dictatorship does. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. If say the IRS asks you to quit your job would you just say no? Sure they aren't forcing you to, but they are like the mob. Same thing. This president and the government is like the mob right now. You don't think Obama wouldn't have made his life a living hell through 'quasi legal' avenues if he reject his request? That's not even remotely the same thing, because what you are describing is the government deciding to control the behavior of a private citizen out of the blue. The "same thing" here would be if I BEGGED THE IRS to give me a big deduction, or let me out of paying taxes or something, and the IRS agreed, but made me quite my job as a condition of getting the deal THAT I ASKED FOR. Obama didn't suddenly wake up and say "Hey, I think I want the hassle of trying to rescue some unprofitable companies that are saddled with huge legacy costs and piss-poor strategy" - he simply decided to put some conditions on giving them money that THEY ASKED him to give them. What gives him the power to solely add such a condition? Shouldn't that have to be added through congress not the president's discretion? I mean if the president can add whatever terms he wants without having to have the bill go back through congress what is the point of even having a congress? |
|
Quoted:
Where exactly does the Constitution grant the Pres. the authority to act as CEO of a publically traded company and force the "real" CEO to resign? Doesn't GM have a Board of Directors and stock holders who have some say in it's management and daily operation? As far as that goes does the Govt. have any authority to administer these "bailouts?' Something about this whole mess just ain't right. He has the right to SAY whatever he wants, just like any other citizen... He has no official/presidential power to compel Wagoner to resign... However, if Wagoner does not resign, the government could decide to let GM go bankrupt... This is where those words get their 'bite' from... Basically, what we have here, is the same as a major investor saying 'I won't lend you any more money unless your CEO leaves' Wagoner could either leave, or his shareholders would have fired him... Why? Because if GM goes BK (Which is what will happen if the government doesn't invest more money into them) then the shareholders all get wiped out... (This is what SHOULD happen) However, the shareholders should be expected to act in their own selfinterest, and do whatever the govt asks them to in order to avoid BK & save their investments.... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. Help me out here... I just read through Article I, Section VII, and I am missing the part where the federal government has the authority to enter into such an arrangement in the first place. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. Help me out here... I just read through Article I, Section VII, and I am missing the part where the federal government has the authority to enter into such an arrangement in the first place. Bingo. |
| The Constitution is not what is the matter. All Liberals have the right to interfear with everything. If a Liberal wants a to force someone to leave thier job then a liberal has that right. No non-liberal can say anything about it. So to Liberals the Consitution is toilet paper. |
| ok look, i know many of you have been straight liners forever, church goers who say "hang them thar criminals" but you gotta understand, the president of the usa is just the biggest criminal position available to an aspiring cut-throat.....so when he "asks" you to resign, thats a polite way of telling you that you are done. Its an "offer" you can't refuse, bow out now with all grace and garnered rewards, or the brunt of federal power will be brought against you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. Help me out here... I just read through Article I, Section VII, and I am missing the part where the federal government has the authority to enter into such an arrangement in the first place. Bingo. Spending power. You want us to spend this money? Do as we say. This is by no means rocket science. ETA: And if congress has already appropriated the funds, they can delegate power to the President to negotiate the terms of the loan. Whoooa! Nefarious shit! |
|
anyone see when that woman senator from i think wisconsin asked geithner where in the constitution it said that the treasury could take control of companies they thought were failing. he looked as if he never even heard of the constitution, never mind having actually read it. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He doesn't have the authority to fire the guy, but last I checked he asked him to resign and the CEO did. Which is still rather fucked up. Exactly. If some guy on the street approaches you and begs you for a job, do you have the "authority" to tell him to show up at 9:00 AM, and to wear a suit? Of course you have that authority, because he GAVE it to you. When GM and Chrysler went begging to the federal government to help them survive, the GAVE the government the authority to put conditions on teh money, and they can still say no. If the two companies don't WANT the federal money, they can tell Obama and Congress to fuck off, and file for bankruptcy like every other company would. Since nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but we are PURELY talking about financial agreements that are entered into voluntarily by both parties, it's not really a constitutional issue as far as I can tell. Help me out here... I just read through Article I, Section VII, and I am missing the part where the federal government has the authority to enter into such an arrangement in the first place. Bingo. Spending power. You want us to spend this money? Do as we say. This is by no means rocket science. ETA: And if congress has already appropriated the funds, they can delegate power to the President to negotiate the terms of the loan. Whoooa! Nefarious shit! Help me out here, I can be a bit dense. Can you point me to the chapter and verse, so to speak, on that? |
|
Quoted:
Help me out here, I can be a bit dense. Can you point me to the chapter and verse, so to speak, on that? I'm not giving you a course on Constitutional Law. For someone who fancies himself as a Constitutional scholar, you're ignorant of one of the most basic and oldest ideas. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 + Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 + McCulloch v. MD = Very broad spending power. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is the Constitution??? Unless I missed something while napping after lunch in Gubmint class, the Constitution was not written to GRANT powers, but to LIMIT them. Like I said though I may have dozed off.  Clearly you did. The Constitution was specifically written in response to a too-weak confederation that existed after the Revolution. It was designed to create a central government with the power to keep its constituent elements in line with consensus views as reached by the means established therein, powers balanced across three branches. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Help me out here, I can be a bit dense. Can you point me to the chapter and verse, so to speak, on that? I'm not giving you a course on Constitutional Law. For someone who fancies himself as a Constitutional scholar, you're ignorant of one of the most basic and oldest ideas. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 + Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 + McCulloch v. MD = Very broad spending power. Point of order- I do not fancy myself any kind of scholar. All I claim to be is intelligent and passionate. If I thought I was already a scholar, I would not be busting my ass in college. I am a layman, admittedly. That said, my position is that you do not have to be a rocket surgeon to understand that the current body of jurisprudence (which you pointed out) is based on huge (fallacious, maybe?) leaps of logic. |
|
Quoted:
That said, my position is that you do not have to be a rocket surgeon to understand that the current body of jurisprudence (which you pointed out) is based on huge (fallacious, maybe?) leaps of logic. You'd probably be the first to call Justice Marshall's opinion a huge or fallacious leap of logic. He was one of the most coherent and logical justices. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Help me out here, I can be a bit dense. Can you point me to the chapter and verse, so to speak, on that? I'm not giving you a course on Constitutional Law. For someone who fancies himself as a Constitutional scholar, you're ignorant of one of the most basic and oldest ideas. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 + Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 + McCulloch v. MD = Very broad spending power. But by no means the power to spend money on anything they wish. I think what LC is interested in is your take on why the bailout spending is specifically constitutionally authorized. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is the Constitution??? Unless I missed something while napping after lunch in Gubmint class, the Constitution was not written to GRANT powers, but to LIMIT them. Like I said though I may have dozed off. Clearly you did. The Constitution was specifically written in response to a too-weak confederation that existed after the Revolution. It was designed to create a central government with the power to keep its constituent elements in line with consensus views as reached by the means established therein, powers balanced across three branches. Central government does not equal Federal government. You're right that it was written to create a strongER national government. But it was by no means intended to be the all-powerful and overreaching central government that it's become today. The States are not a "constituent element" of the Federal government. They're separate governments entirely. And corporations and individuals within corporations even less so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Help me out here, I can be a bit dense. Can you point me to the chapter and verse, so to speak, on that? I'm not giving you a course on Constitutional Law. For someone who fancies himself as a Constitutional scholar, you're ignorant of one of the most basic and oldest ideas. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 + Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 + McCulloch v. MD = Very broad spending power. But by no means the power to spend money on anything they wish. I think what LC is interested in is your take on why the bailout spending is specifically constitutionally authorized. Its not "specifically constitutionally authorized." It doesn't have to be. The Constitution doesn't have to say "Congress has the power to bailout failing auto makers" for Congress to have the power to do so. Nor is there a good idea clause in the Constitution. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Help me out here, I can be a bit dense. Can you point me to the chapter and verse, so to speak, on that? I'm not giving you a course on Constitutional Law. For someone who fancies himself as a Constitutional scholar, you're ignorant of one of the most basic and oldest ideas. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 + Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 + McCulloch v. MD = Very broad spending power. But by no means the power to spend money on anything they wish. I think what LC is interested in is your take on why the bailout spending is specifically constitutionally authorized. Its not "specifically constitutionally authorized." It doesn't have to be. The Constitution doesn't have to say "Congress has the power to bailout failing auto makers" for Congress to have the power to do so. Nor is there a good idea clause in the Constitution. So broad powers means unlimited powers? Or is there any limit at all on what congress may spend money? |