• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What has Obama done that violates the Constitution?

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'd like an explanation from where you libs stand on this and would like some answers about regulated capitalism and total government.

Do you think there's anything, any industry that should be left alone from government intrusion(besides priavy or whatever)?

There libs who want a so-called fairness-doctrine for talk-radio(presumbly conservatives).

There libs who want national health-care(not at city local level like fire and police department, but at federal).

There libs who want to regulate certain food to prevent obesity.

There libs who want to regulate the economy and control which cars you drive and how much electricity you have and which lightbulbs you use.

There even libs who want to nationalize grocery-stores, probably Michael Moore dream.

There even libs who want to require the use of verbs!
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'd like an explanation from where you libs stand on this and would like some answers about regulated capitalism and total government.

Okay, so far as you understand that regulated capitalism =/= total government.

Do you think there's anything, any industry that should be left alone from government intrusion(besides priavy or whatever)?

No, not off the top of my head. This is because I realize that any technology, and therefore any industry, can result in abuses by certain parties. Therefore the government should be able to pass laws to regulate industries in order to prevent abuse.

There libs who want a so-called fairness-doctrine for talk-radio(presumbly conservatives).

Actually, the biggest censorship on radio and the talk show I've witnessed has come from conservatives, especially the moral guardians. I listen to a local talk show radio station that would have quite a bit of racy material on it, especially after 10pm when the FCC relaxed it's regulations. That changed after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction on the Super Bowl. After that, fines for indecency shot up and the vocal minorities complaining about tv and radio shows got a lot more power. So don't act like conservatives don't want control over the media either - John McCain wasn't asking liberals not to complain to the FCC about expletives in "Saving Private Ryan" when CBS aired it on Veteran's Day a few years ago.

There libs who want national health-care(not at city local level like fire and police department, but at federal).

Yeah, but there are a lot of reasons for this. The more people who pay into a healthcare system the greater purchasing power that system has. Also, people cross state lines all the time in this country, and the goal of healthcare reform is to make it more universal. That's why I support a single-payer federal health-care system, although I would not mind a compromise in which states implement single-payer statewide health-care systems. The only problem, though, is that such statewide systems would be less stable than a federal system in that a statewide system can be much more easily disbanded than a federal one.

There libs who want to regulate certain food to prevent obesity.

Yes, but there's reason for this. Food manufactures tend to use the cheapest ingredients in order to maximize their profits, despite the health risks involved in using those ingredients. This isn't so bad except when ALL the food manufactures use this tactic.

Take, for example, the use of high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. HFCS has been attributed to the incredible rising obesity levels in the United States because of how prevalent it's used as a sweetener in foods, especially sodas. Even so-called "health drinks" contain HFCS. But look through a grocery store and try to find foods and beverages that don't contain any HFCS. You'll find it difficult to do so.

Now, I need my soda in order to wake up in the morning, and I don't like the taste of coffee. And I've only found one soda that uses sugar instead of HFCS. Unfortunately, it's not sold in my local supermarket.

Now, if the soda companies sold beverages with sugar instead of HFCS, I would pay for it, even if it cost me a little bit extra. This is because the health effects of sugar sodas would cost me less in the long run of the effects of HFCS sodas. But the major soda companies don't manufacture them and make them easily available to consumers.

Only recently has PepsiCo put out "throwback" versions of Pepsi and Mountain Dew, which uses sugar instead of HFCS. But it's only going to be available for 8 weeks. Hopefully there will be enough consumer demand for PepsiCo to keep manufacturing sodas sweetened with sugar.

Otherwise, my health is going to be affected by the manufacturers of the beverages, and I don't think that's right.

There libs who want to regulate the economy and control which cars you drive and how much electricity you have and which lightbulbs you use.

Yeah, because they're trying to regulate the use of resources on this planet so we don't use them all up in our generation and leave nothing left for later. Such gross consumerism is a perfect lead to the extinction of not just humanity but also every other living thing on this planet.

There even libs who want to nationalize grocery-stores, probably Michael Moore dream.

Never heard of this, so I won't comment on it.
 

Aegis

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
21
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A lot of conservatives make remarks about how Obama hates the constitution and violates it so I was hoping if some of you could point out to me what Obama has done that violates the Consitutiton?

Executive orders, health care (though he hasnt actually "done" anything yet), cap n' trade, nationalizing GM, Capping Executive pay, the continuation of TARP, and a bunch of small other things that aren't really significant to this argument except for the sake of principle.
 

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Aegis

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
21
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
One of the first things he did in office.

"...had aides circulate a draft executive order that would close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year." -- MSNBC


How is that unconstitutional?

The constitution gives no such authority to Congress so as to regulate and tax how much gas a private entity burns.





And that?

Please point to me where the constitution gives congress the authority to own a private company.


He didn't cap executive pay, he made it easier for owners of stock in public companies to question their pay.

Wow, paint it anyway you want it dude, not even our president is denying that, he's actually campaigning it.



Again, how?

Again, read the constitution, it says expressly :

Article I; Section 8: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

It requires the laws to be uniform, and not subject to change over the whims of deciding what banks ought to survive so that they may continue to have the Federal Reserves favor in receiving loans to pay for their own personal agenda.
 

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"...had aides circulate a draft executive order that would close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year." -- MSNBC

How is that possibly unconstitutional?

The constitution gives no such authority to Congress so as to regulate and tax how much gas a private entity burns.

Sure it does. Commerce clause.

Please point to me where the constitution gives congress the authority to own a private company.

It's not a private company any more. The government can buy whatever it wants. It bought it, now it owns it.

Wow, paint it anyway you want it dude, not even our president is denying that, he's actually campaigning it.

No he isn't.

He is capping pay directly for companies we bailed out. That's legitimate. The taxpayers gave the companies money, we have a right to demand conditions for it. But the pay for other companies is not being capped, it's only as I described.

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

Uniform simply means the same throughout the U.S., not over time. Of course they can change the laws, as long as they are the same everywhere.
 

Aegis

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
21
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How is that possibly unconstitutional?

The fact is that it was an EXECUTIVE ORDER, and that is not a political move granted to the president by the constitution.

Sure it does. Commerce clause.

Uniform simply means the same throughout the U.S., not over time.

The constitution gives Congress the right to "regulate inter-state commerce, that is, commerce performed across state lines. I fail to see how burning a fuel source is a practice performed over state lines, let alone being "commerce" at all. If they were taxing the AMOUNT of oil PURCHASED, it would be a different story.

It's not a private company any more. The government can buy whatever it wants. It bought it, now it owns it.

Really, so it can just buy your house w/out your consent?? Point to the part in the constitution where it says "the gov't can buy whatever it wants."
No he isn't.
Really?
He is capping pay directly for companies we bailed out.
You say different...

The taxpayers gave the companies money, we have a right to demand conditions for it. But the pay for other companies is not being capped, it's only as I described.

The fact remains is that Obama IS caping pay on SOME executives (which that in itself is probably unconstitutional) and the constitution gives Washington no authority to do it.

Uniform simply means the same throughout the U.S., not over time.

I know what it means and that was my point, gov't bailed out SOME banks over others, in other words: the rules changed once the bankruptcy was that of a Federal Reserve precious entity. (IE: Bank of America, Citi, Morgan Sachs, ect.)

That is not a uniform law, and is therefor unconstitutional.
 

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The fact is that it was an EXECUTIVE ORDER, and that is not a political move granted to the president by the constitution.

He's commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It's a military prison.

The constitution gives Congress the right to "regulate inter-state commerce, that is, commerce performed across state lines. I fail to see how burning a fuel source is a practice performed over state lines, let alone being "commerce" at all. If they were taxing the AMOUNT of oil PURCHASED, it would be a different story.

Fuel travels across state lines, and is bought and sold (commerce). It's well within the established definitions of interstate commerce. Go ask a lawyer.

Really, so it can just buy your house w/out your consent?? Point to the part in the constitution where it says "the gov't can buy whatever it wants."

You didn't say anything about "without consent" before. The government didn't buy GM without its consent.

The fact remains is that Obama IS caping pay on SOME executives (which that in itself is probably unconstitutional) and the constitution gives Washington no authority to do it.

Show me please where the government is capping pay for execs at companies where it has not provided bailout money or bought part of the company.

I know what it means and that was my point, gov't bailed out SOME banks over others, in other words: the rules changed once the bankruptcy was that of a Federal Reserve precious entity. (IE: Bank of America, Citi, Morgan Sachs, ect.)

That is not a uniform law, and is therefor unconstitutional.

No, you don't know what it means, you are repeating your mistaken claim. Uniform means across geography, not time.
 

Areopagitican

Banned
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
231
Location
University of San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
He's commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It's a military prison.

Hardly giving President Obama a free pass. Obama must respect the Constitution, it is a moot point whether or not the territory in which his orders fall upon is within the purview of the Federal Constitution, because Obama himself is issuing the orders within a territory governed by the Constitution and after affirming to uphold it.

It's fairly simple stuff. I'm perplexed why you thought military bases are somehow "above" the Constitution? Please explain.

Fuel travels across state lines, and is bought and sold (commerce). It's well within the established definitions of interstate commerce. Go ask a lawyer.

Any lawyer would tell you there's a wide difference between transporting fuel, and using fuel.

You didn't say anything about "without consent" before. The government didn't buy GM without its consent.

"Who" is GM?

If you asked me, it's the stock/equity and bond holders. In that case, yes, it was done without their consent.

Show me please where the government is capping pay for execs at companies where it has not provided bailout money or bought part of the company.

Just because you loan someone money, doesn't make one owner. It would be if I loaned you money and proceeded to tell you how much you could make... Why would you? I mean, why would you follow my directions if but for the gun I held against your temple?

That hardly scratches the surface of the "funny," business going on with TARP.

Take this money whether you need it or not | Business: Loren Steffy | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

RealClearMarkets - Why Won't Geithner Take TARP Repayments?

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

Scholars and Rogues Banks forced to take bailout money they don’t want or need

No, you don't know what it means, you are repeating your mistaken claim. Uniform means across geography, not time.

Still doesn't make one lick of difference. You think Riverside Credit Union got the same perks as Citi, AIG? Well, newsflash, they didn't. So, well, you're still wrong.
 

remykwp

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
27
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
nationalizing GM, nice post
 

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's fairly simple stuff. I'm perplexed why you thought military bases are somehow "above" the Constitution? Please explain.

Did I say they were above the Constitution?

The Constitution says the President is commander-in-chief. Are you saying the president can't ever order the military to create a holding area for prisoners?

Any lawyer would tell you there's a wide difference between transporting fuel, and using fuel.

Nope. Any lawyer will tell you the feds are well within their power under the interstate commerce clause to regulate emissions. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit if this bill passes - you'll see for yourself when it loses.

"Who" is GM?

If you asked me, it's the stock/equity and bond holders. In that case, yes, it was done without their consent.

It was? I don't remember that. Were they forced to sell their stock?

Just because you loan someone money, doesn't make one owner.

It gives you a legal interest though. Do you own a house with a mortgage? Better check the papers - you are required to do certain things with the home as part of your loan agreement. It's a contract like any other.
 

Aegis

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
21
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
He's commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It's a military prison.

And who appropriates funding for the prison? In fact, who "establishes" prisons? You'll find the answer in Article I: Section 8; The Congress.
You didn't say anything about "without consent" before. The government didn't buy GM without its consent.
That's not the point, the point is, the constitution does not give the federal gov't the authority to "buy what ever it wants."

Show me please where the government is capping pay for execs at companies where it has not provided bailout money or bought part of the company.

WHO CARES?! it doesn't matter if they got bail-out money, the constitution gives no authority whatsoever to the gov't to cap someone's earnings. But hey, the constitution doesnt give the authority for the federal gov't the power to bail companies out, so what the hell?

No, you don't know what it means, you are repeating your mistaken claim. Uniform means across geography, not time.

No, uniform means consistent, applying to all (look it up) and that is basically the anti-thesis of TARP.

Nope. Any lawyer will tell you the feds are well within their power under the interstate commerce clause to regulate emissions. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit if this bill passes - you'll see for yourself when it loses.

Yea, and any lawyer used to say that blacks shouldn't get the right to vote. Guess it makes it constitutional, huh??
 

misterman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
12,913
Reaction score
2,096
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And who appropriates funding for the prison? In fact, who "establishes" prisons? You'll find the answer in Article I: Section 8; The Congress.

So? Congress hasn't told him he can't spend the money on a military prison.

That's not the point, the point is, the constitution does not give the federal gov't the authority to "buy what ever it wants."

It doesn't? The federal government can't buy anything? No computers? No airplanes? No asphalt? Wow.

WHO CARES?! it doesn't matter if they got bail-out money, the constitution gives no authority whatsoever to the gov't to cap someone's earnings. But hey, the constitution doesnt give the authority for the federal gov't the power to bail companies out, so what the hell?

Like I said, the government isn't capping anyone's earnings, except for those it gives loans to, which is perfectly reasonable. What you need to prove is the government isn't allowed to give loans. Good luck with that.

No, uniform means consistent, applying to all (look it up)

If you know this, simply post the definition.

Yea, and any lawyer used to say that blacks shouldn't get the right to vote. Guess it makes it constitutional, huh??

No, lawyers didn't say that. Lawyers said blacks don't have the right to vote, not that they shouldn't. It's simply a legal observation.

You're welcome to argue that a century of cases regarding the commerce clause are completely wrong and unjust if you want. But you can't just say it and expect us all to accept it. Get to work on your legal brief.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Like I said, the government isn't capping anyone's earnings, except for those it gives loans to, which is perfectly reasonable.


Well, for one thing, it's not perfectly reasonable, but for the other, unless it's actually in the agreement under which the companies took the loans, then no, it's not something the government has the power to do.

Merely giving a loan doesn't give the government complete power over those to whom the loan is granted. Or any other lender, for that matter.


What you need to prove is the government isn't allowed to give loans. Good luck with that.

Strawman.
 

Rassales

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
564
Reaction score
166
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For the record:

GM's stockholders were in favor of the bailout. We know this because their investments were practically worthless until the Fed came along. Investors will always take something over nothing.

The rules for the bank bailouts allowed the government to regulate compensation--they agreed to the rules when they took the money.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The rules for the bank bailouts allowed the government to regulate compensation--they agreed to the rules when they took the money.

'Fraid not. If this is correct, show the language. Keep in mind that Feb '09 was months after the fact.
 

Rassales

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
564
Reaction score
166
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
'Fraid not. If this is correct, show the language. Keep in mind that Feb '09 was months after the fact.
This is a from a summary of the legislation, dated October 14, 2008:
Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance

Any financial institution that sells troubled assets under the program shall be subject to limitations on executive compensation and other requirements of the Act. During the effectiveness of the Secretary’s authority under the Act, if the Secretary makes direct purchases of troubled assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act and receives a “meaningful” equity or debt position in the financial institution because of the transaction, the Secretary shall require the financial institution meet “appropriate” standards for executive compensation and corporate governance...

www.hro.com/files/file/.../ALERT-TarpLegislationSummar.pdf
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is a from a summary of the legislation, dated October 14, 2008:

www.hro.com/files/file/.../ALERT-TarpLegislationSummar.pdf

Link does not work.

Besides, this is not the language of the law. This is a "summary" of something, one dated eleven days after the legislation was passed. And even if it's a "summary" of the law, it's far too vague to be meaningful.

The legislation itself limited only new financial "incentives" which encourage unnecessary risks. It also prohibited "golden parachute" provisions in new executives.

It did not limit executive salaries, or even existing golden parachute provisions, at all.

You can read the text of the law here:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ343/html/PLAW-110publ343.htm

It's Sec. 111.

SEC. 111. <<NOTE: 12 USC 5221.>> EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.

(a) Applicability.--Any financial institution that sells troubled
assets to the Secretary under this Act shall be subject to the executive
compensation requirements of subsections (b) and (c) and the provisions
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as provided under the amendment
by section 302, as applicable.
(b) Direct Purchases.--
(1) In general.--Where <<NOTE: Standards.>> the Secretary
determines that the purposes of this Act are best met through
direct purchases of troubled assets from an individual financial
institution where no bidding process or market prices are
available, and the Secretary receives a meaningful equity or
debt position in the financial institution as a result of the
transaction, the Secretary shall require that the financial
institution meet appropriate standards for executive
compensation and corporate governance. The <<NOTE: Effective
date.>> standards required under this subsection shall be
effective for the duration of the period that the Secretary
holds an equity or debt position in the financial institution.
(2) Criteria.--The standards required under this subsection
shall include--

[[Page 122 STAT. 3777]]

(A) limits on compensation that exclude incentives
for senior executive officers of a financial institution
to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten
the value of the financial institution during the period
that the Secretary holds an equity or debt position in
the financial institution;
(B) a provision for the recovery by the financial
institution of any bonus or incentive compensation paid
to a senior executive officer based on statements of
earnings, gains, or other criteria that are later proven
to be materially inaccurate; and
(C) a prohibition on the financial institution
making any golden parachute payment to its senior
executive officer during the period that the Secretary
holds an equity or debt position in the financial
institution.
(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``senior executive officer'' means an individual who is one of
the top 5 highly paid executives of a public company, whose
compensation is required to be disclosed pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and any regulations issued
thereunder, and non-public company counterparts.

(c) Auction Purchases.--
Where <<NOTE: Employment. Contracts. Prohibition.>> the Secretary
determines that the purposes of this Act are best met through auction
purchases of troubled assets, and only where such purchases per
financial institution in the aggregate exceed $300,000,000 (including
direct purchases), the Secretary shall prohibit, for such financial
institution, any new employment contract with a senior executive officer
that provides a golden parachute in the event of an involuntary
termination, bankruptcy <<NOTE: Guidance. Deadline. Effective date.>>
filing, insolvency, or receivership. The Secretary shall issue guidance
to carry out this paragraph not later than 2 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and such guidance shall be effective upon
issuance.

(d) Sunset.--The provisions of subsection (c) shall apply only to
arrangements entered into during the period during which the authorities
under section 101(a) are in effect, as determined under section 120.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So if I wanted to be a movie star would you write a film review for my "works" even though I haven't made any.
Apples and organges.
 
Top Bottom