The Obama administration and the rule of law
I agree with Mickey Kaus that what he refers to as “the screwing of the secure lenders” and “the strong-arming of the banks that received TARP funds” by the Obama administration are both dangerous precedents.
And I agree that it’s very troubling that these things were done in the name of a Chrysler-Fiat deal that, because Obama refused to demand equal “sacrifices” of his beloved UAW, will result in the company going to bankruptcy (and perhaps ruin) despite all the assistance and effort.
But I disagree that it’s the latter point that’s a bigger problem than the former. The precedents set in this case are just too dangerous, and too chilling to our economy and to contracts as a whole, to justify changing the rule of law that is designed to protect all sides and all parties.
Michael Medved has a piece on the subject based on, of all things, Leviticus. It’s a must-read.
In Forbes, economics prof and NYU business school dean Thomas F. Cooley expands on the same theme from a completely different perspective.
That’s why justice wears that blindfold. It’s not that she’s unaware, it’s that she’s supposed to be impartial.
But Obama is above all those considerations. He knows what’s best at any given time. We should trust him.
It seems to me the whole thing was a shell game – three card Monte. I believe they knew all along Chrylser would go into bankruptcy eventually, but they had to give them the money first to set the hook. Now they are reeled in and flopping in the bottom of the boat.
Good piece by Medved. Reading it reminded me of a quote by William F. Buckley Junior because of the “fairness” issue.
“I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University.”
A group of everyday Americans are more fair and balanced in their reasoning. That is why (for the most part) our jury system works – at least in criminal trials.
we interupt this thread for a quick news report…
coupe as predicted happening in Georgia now…
i said about a week or so ago its heating up again, and it may fall..
Georgia Accuses Russia Over Foiled Rebellion
abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7504399
On another note…
Iran attacked Iraq by air today…
the list of things going on now, would boggle the mind and make some soil their pants.
obama admits missiles shield works…
i wish i had 45 minutes and a white board and i could lay out things and boy would everyone not be happy at me
we now return to the current thread in progress…
Neo,
Somewhat tangential, but still on point regarding unlawful actions by the government is this….
I don’t know how this was legal, I’m not a lawyer, but talk about an out of control government and chief executive. Much of Roosevelt’s policies seem sort of familiar in today’s environment.
Oh, an interesting read on the subject here.
“…that ordered mass destruction of livestock and crops in order to reduce supply and drive up prices.”
During WW2 some of my relatives got into cattle smuggling. Who’s cows were they smuggling- their own! Seems the government decided that in order to control/ ration the food supply you had to take your cows to Federally liscensed slaughter houses- and the slaughter houses did not want to deal with the farmers who only had a cow or two to sell- could not be bothered to deal with the little guy. So the relatives began smuggling their cows to non Federal butchers at night- who slaughtered the cattle and then sold the meat. …..Federally imposed food shortages…imagine that.
Look into the pending Food Safety Act. Understand the regulatory burden they are proposing for the small part time farmers- or the retirees that raise for farmers market.
Noel Sheppard, who writes for the conservative Newsbusters and is oft quoted by Rush ,- once claimed in the comments portion of an article at Newsbusters that he had knowledge that a BUSH administration official pressured banks into taking money they did not want. It is almost enough to make me think there is a real conspiracy amok that runs deeper than just the Democrats.
It is almost enough to make me think there is a real conspiracy amok that runs deeper than just the Democrats.
short of locking someone into a gas chamber i guess no one will beleive a conspiracy that is out in the open, has literature about it, and has never been hidden.
just disbeleved.
and so never really opposed except by a few who got it.
The Bush support of the LOST treaty and Amnesty along with their willingness to allow so many Mexican consulates inside the US says a lot also…..
Artfldgr- I understand the globalist, both right and left- are out to destroy the sovereighnty of individual western Nation States- you dont have to convince me of that.
Amity Shlaes’ book on the Great Depression (The Forgotten Man) lays out FDR’s erratic attempts to control the economy from Washington. It also reveals his extreme dislike for business and the wealthy. There are chilling parallels with Obama.
kill the last post.. someone asked a question and i typed the answer…
this is more pertnent to the thread anyway.
buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions.
lower budget less ability
Maybe the blindfold is for impartiality but I’d be dang careful around a blind woman with a long sword.
Hi Neo,
I realize Obama’s actions are thuggish, bordering on criminal, but in the end, he has to do it. His ideology demands it, and he knows nothing else.
If he lets bankruptcy proceed normally, the Union contract will be void and the workers will work like the rest of us work – at the wages, rules and benefits prevailing in the general market.
If that happens, it will eventually occur in all of the auto makers. At that point, the union has no reason to exist. Its employees will continue to work as always, just without a union. Cars will be made, probably better than before and the companies might survive.
Obama’s ideology says this is impossible or evil and must be stopped. Workers will be working without the power of a union. They will work for their pay, not for the glory of union power. Leftist ideology says that’s evil. All other considerations – on Obama’s part – are not really relevant.
In a sense, all of the other considerations are not really relevant to the conservative message either. Work for your pay, be happy. Its good enough for conservatives. The rule of law (including bankruptcy law) is just the glue that makes it possible.
James
James, another thing:
Barack figures: if that union can hold Chrysler afloat for 3 and 1/2 years, Barack gets all those union votes, plus votes from members of other unions.
Nolanimrod,
Depending on how angry she is, I’m even more afraid of a sighted woman with a long sword. 🙂
There are so many things wrong with the Obama administration’s position on the Chrysler deal….it is just pain frightening. I have been watching the political news very carefully and it seems that the “usual suspects” have been very quiet. Nine out of ten political pieces are against the administration’s machinations behind the scenes and attempts to degrade the independent secured investors. The silence has been deafening…maybe it is a signal that some in the press are starting to wake up?
Oops: plain frightening…although he plain could also be painful in action.
jon baker Says:
“article at Newsbusters that he had knowledge that a BUSH administration official pressured banks into taking money they did not want.”
Yeah, I think the idea was to hide who needed the money (to prevent bank runs on them) by trying to get everyone to take it.
Then Obama moved to use the fact they took it to take them over…
he may have said ‘a bank”- singular- but non the less- disturbing
The peculiar aspect is that while Obama is putatively a lawyer – albeit an apostate one who never really practiced, and a law review editor who never published – he has curiously little regard for the law.
You’d think that, having received training as a lawyer, he’d have more regard for the law itself. Of course, while putatively an American, he also has curiously little regard for America.
I suppose there’s something to be said for consistency. But what, exactly, does this man believe in passionately, if anything?
It’s painfully obvious what he really believes in: fiat rule by the One. He will be made Pres for Life, mark my words. Obama=Chavez, though infinitely more dangerous.
What is it going to take to make us peasants take up cudgels instead of whacking our keyboards?
An article by Jim Carney on Business Insider discusses allegations by other non-Tarp bondholders that they had also been threatened by the Obama administration. Mr. Carney states “None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.”
Private citizens now fear that the executive branch of the federal government will seek to destroy them if they do not bend to its arbitrary exercise of power in favor of its political supporters. Oh, we got change all right. We changed from a Constitutional democracy to a Banana Republic . . . in only a hundred days.
Tom Says:
“What is it going to take to make us peasants take up cudgels instead of whacking our keyboards?”
Elections being canceled. 🙂
Although shutting down talk radio will be enough for sabotage (IMO).
” [W]hen [the law] has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters….The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish , without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converetd plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.” : Portion of an 1850 quote of French philosopher Frederic Bastiat that is in “Liberty and Tyranny” by Mark Levin
” converted” not “convervetd”- what I get for typing from a book
Thomass: Why would Hussein cancel elections when he’s in position to count the votes before they are cast?
You’d think that, having received training as a lawyer, he’d have more regard for the law itself.
that depends for what reason you learned law.
if you leanred law so that you can break it and destroy it, then no, your statement fails.
training does not induce respect.
never has never shall
a communist would learn the law of the enemy so that he could use it agsinst them. turn it and invert it against itself by pushing certain principals to absurdity, etc.
forgot to add.
who but a lawyer would know what action in subtlety would undermine everything? ]
without law he would have to be very lucky to dismantle the machine he doesnt understand.
lets just say that a person with no mechanical ability makes for a less capable sabatour than one with a lot of mechanical ability.
the latter has enough knowlege to hide his guilt in ambiguity.
Tom Says:
“Thomass: Why would Hussein cancel elections when he’s in position to count the votes before they are cast?”
Whether that is true or not; we are sounding like the DU…
Yes, O is a creep. But we still have not made a serious effort to beat him. We’ve got to find a way around the media filter. We need some kind of message coherence. We need a image make over. Yada yada…
If we did those things and the word was out on what he was doing… well, Obama and the dems will get swept out in the next election.
Artfldgr Says:
“lets just say that a person with no mechanical ability makes for a less capable sabatour than one with a lot of mechanical ability.”
progressives often fail because they don’t really know anything (systems, history, et cetera). Thats saved us often before… Obama is getting ideas from Andrew Sullivian for gawds sake. 🙂 If he had a deep understanding of the system, he’d support it.
If he had a deep understanding of the system, he’d support it.
how so?
it depends on what he believes is his deep understanding and where its placed.
“Empathy” Versus Law
by Thomas Sowell
townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/05/07/empathy_versus_law_part_iii?