Our Caudillo President

[Tim]

He doesn't have the authority to do so under Article II of the United States Constitution. This would fall under the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government, and not the Executive or Legislative branches. Though the Legislative Branch would have a better case than would the Executive Branch. This is quite frankly a Judicial issue, and the President doesn't have the authority to demand money from a private corporation.

He can demand anything he wants. The constitution does not take that power away from him.

But it WOULD be unconstitutional to demand this money under threat of law.

BP had the right to refuse, they didn't...

So there was nothing unconstitutional about this.

 

[retro]

He can demand anything he wants. The constitution does not take that power away from him.

But it WOULD be unconstitutional to demand this money under threat of law.

BP had the right to refuse, they didn't...

So there was nothing unconstitutional about this.

In and of itself, there isn't any proof of anything unconstitutional. However, if you look at the situation in light of the other comments and threats that have been made, he was absolutely in the wrong. Obama has already stated that he wants to have legislation that would raise the liability cap in situations like these from the $75 million allowed currently, and then retroactively applying that to BP. But there's a problem, that is prohibited under Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution – No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Now tie that along with Obama's threat to "kick someone's ass" with strong arming BP into this $20 escrow account, and you have a very strong case for this being blatantly unconstitutional.

He's used the threat of law being passed to hit BP retroactively, threatened to kick someone's ass over this issue, and then demands money from BP. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[retro]

Sounds like you're describing the 8 years before this of Bush and the Republicans to me. Why are you so indignant now because its Democrats? I dont remember much of you getting angry about 8 years of the same stuff before Obama came to power, on here?

I wasn't around here during the Bush Administration, but feel free to go to my other forum where I was highly critical of the Bush Administration. I wasn't as critical of them as I have been of Obama, but that's because it is my own personal opinion that the Obama administration has gone even further than Bush ever did.

 

[Peter Parka]

I wasn't around here during the Bush Administration, but feel free to go to my other forum where I was highly critical of the Bush Administration. I wasn't as critical of them as I have been of Obama, but that's because it is my own personal opinion that the Obama administration has gone even further than Bush ever did.

I would disagree but then I'm not living in the USA. I did see how Bush dragged my country and others into an illegal, pointless and expensive war that has cost the life of loads of soldiers and civilians and also how he managed to fuck up the economy. I find it hard to believe that Obama has already managed to top that.

 

[Tim]

In and of itself, there isn't any proof of anything unconstitutional. However, if you look at the situation in light of the other comments and threats that have been made, he was absolutely in the wrong. Obama has already stated that he wants to have legislation that would raise the liability cap in situations like these from the $75 million allowed currently, and then retroactively applying that to BP. But there's a problem, that is prohibited under Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution – No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Now tie that along with Obama's threat to "kick someone's ass" with strong arming BP into this $20 escrow account, and you have a very strong case for this being blatantly unconstitutional.

He's used the threat of law being passed to hit BP retroactively, threatened to kick someone's ass over this issue, and then demands money from BP. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

:24: OMG is that all you have? He threatened BP with laws that haven't been written yet, that will be made retroactive if he can get them written? Really?
I'm sure the legions of high priced lawyers BP has on retainer would have loved that fight.

Even if your scenario played out like you said, it still doesn't make it unconstitutional to threaten with a law that isn't even written yet.
More than likely BP was told that if they ever wanted to drill in our waters again, then they need to take care of this mess. That alone would be enough motivation.

 

[retro]

it still doesn't make it unconstitutional to threaten with a law that isn't even written yet.
More than likely BP was told that if they ever wanted to drill in our waters again, then they need to take care of this mess. That alone would be enough motivation.

Which would also be unconstitutional and illegal, but hey... this administration has made a habit of that so far, so why stop now.

We don't even know where all of the fault lies yet... so why don't we worry about fixing the damn problem, and then assessing all of the blame. What a concept.

Liability and damages are an issue for the courts to decide, not for the Executive branch to demand. We have a Judicial branch of government for a reason.

Obama has used the presidency as a bully pulpit for the last 1.5 years, and this is another shining example of it.

 

[Accountable]

I'd like to go back to the escrow, since getting you to acknowledge any abuse of presidential powers by Obama is a futile exercise.

First, it's only a $20 billion escrow that was set up.
Second, it is an escrow so the government doesn't have access to it. The claims are paid directly from the escrow and not from the government, because the government doesn't have the money in it's possession.
Third, this is only a beginning. BP will need to put more money into the escrow as needed. The $20 billion wasn't any sort of cap or final number.

and who's in charge of the escrow account? Ken Feinberg, Obama's Pay Czar. Sure, that sounds completely on the up & up. :sarcasm

 

[Minor Axis]

I love the fact that the administration is wiping their collective asses with the Constitution... makes me absolutely fucking sick. On another forum right after Obama was elected, someone said that it was great because "the adults are back in charge". I haven't seen any "adult" behavior in the last year and a half... I see a school yard bully and petulant children that think that they can do whatever the fuck they want to do because they're in power. Chicago-style politics at its finest... I'm just glad that Obama's approval numbers are dropping like a rock and it looks like at the very least the Dems are going to lose the house. We need some checks and balances in place in order to bring this President and his bullies in line.

Who would you like to see in charge?

Which would also be unconstitutional and illegal, but hey... this administration has made a habit of that so far, so why stop now.
We don't even know where all of the fault lies yet... so why don't we worry about fixing the damn problem, and then assessing all of the blame. What a concept.
Liability and damages are an issue for the courts to decide, not for the Executive branch to demand. We have a Judicial branch of government for a reason.
Obama has used the presidency as a bully pulpit for the last 1.5 years, and this is another shining example of it.

The concept of committing unconstitutional and illegal acts requires a particular mindset that apparently not shared by most of those in Congress, and/or our collective citizens, otherwise you'd see actions to stop it. How is that explained?

 

[Tim]

The concept of committing unconstitutional and illegal acts requires a particular mindset that apparently not shared by most of those in Congress, and/or our collective citizens, otherwise you'd see actions to stop it. How is that explained?

It's quite simple really.. you parrot the talking points over and over screaming that it's unconstitutional. And even after you have a moment of clarity/truth, you go right back to the talking points even though you know they are unfounded.

Maybe you missed Retro's moment of truth up there

In and of itself, there isn't any proof of anything unconstitutional....

Then went right back to the talking points :dunno

And you can't take actions to stop a lie...

 

[Minor Axis]

Maybe you missed Retro's moment of truth up there
Then went right back to the talking points :dunno

Actually I did miss that particular post. Thanks.

The Libertarians in the forum think basically the entire government is acting unconstitutionally. So I ask again, how does that happen? I understand their thinking but I question the logic as compared to the intent of our founding fathers. Was the intent for the Constitution to lay out specifically point by point what the Congress can do, or was it a general frame work? Every law created is not mentioned in the Constitution. I suppose that also applies to all governmental assistance programs. When Social Security was created, how many people in Congress actually thought it was unconstitutional? Although it was before my time, I'm willing to bet the majority thought it was within bounds.

 

[Accountable]

The US Constitution is a job description, an enumerated list of what the federal government is limited to; one can also consider it a framework in the sense of a corral to keep the government from trampling liberty. Every federal law should be anchored in that constitution, firmly, and if it is not then it is, by definition, unconstitutional. The fact that power-hungry politicians were able to instill lies into our vernacular and culture do not change the basic facts. The tradition of usurping the Constitution with impunity also does not change the basic facts. The Social Security System was and is unconstitutional, and will continue to be until the Constitution is amended to allow the federal government such deep invasion into individuals' private lives.

 

[Tim]

So in the course of 75 years no one has challenged the constitutionality of Social security in court?

 

[Accountable]

Dunno, but the SCOTUS has been known to stretch the Constitution beyond credulity more than once.

 

[JanieDough]

I agree that they should put that kind of money in a fund, but I also agree that was the wrong way to go about it EXCEPT I don't think Congress would pass it, AND people wanted to see him take action didn't they...well there you go!

 

[retro]

I agree that they should put that kind of money in a fund, but I also agree that was the wrong way to go about it EXCEPT I don't think Congress would pass it, AND people wanted to see him take action didn't they...well there you go!

So he should break the law, or at the very least tread on a very fine grey line because people supposedly wanted him to take action? People wanted Bush to take action after 9/11, and Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both unconstitutional as well, based on the fact that only Congress has the authority to declare war. But they chose to delegate that power to the President, which they didn't have the authority to do.

The President doesn't have the ability to to act unilaterally because people supposedly want him to "do something".

 

[JanieDough]

So he should break the law, or at the very least tread on a very fine grey line because people supposedly wanted him to take action? People wanted Bush to take action after 9/11, and Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both unconstitutional as well, based on the fact that only Congress has the authority to declare war. But they chose to delegate that power to the President, which they didn't have the authority to do.

The President doesn't have the ability to to act unilaterally because people supposedly want him to "do something".

Retro simmer down now. Simmuh Donna!


I don't know the answer - it was just my opinion. You really need to take a chill pill. Those Fox Newsies have your panties all bunched in a wad.

What do you suggest? Weren't you saying more needed to be done by government?

 

[Minor Axis]

I agree that they should put that kind of money in a fund, but I also agree that was the wrong way to go about it EXCEPT I don't think Congress would pass it, AND people wanted to see him take action didn't they...well there you go!

Social Security was the perfect social program until the politicians in charge (of every flavor) sabotaged it by deciding there was too much money not to rob it. I can't say a program like this would ever run into problems, but if it had not been robbed, it would have the money to deal with the baby boomer retirees. Sadly I don't believe there is enough money there to deal with the current situation.

 

[dt3]

Social Security was the perfect social program until the politicians in charge (of every flavor) sabotaged it by deciding there was too much money not to rob it. I can't say a program like this would ever run into problems, but if it had not been robbed, it would have the money to deal with the baby boomer retirees. Sadly I don't believe there is enough money there to deal with the current situation.

The first person to draw monthly payments put in $24.75 and received back almost $23000 over the rest of her life. You can't convince me that's a teneble system, or even a good idea.

But you're right about the morons robbing it. It should be considered as the biggest travesty in American politics, but instead people seem to think it was bound to happen eventually.

 

[Tim]

The first person to draw monthly payments put in $24.75 and received back almost $23000 over the rest of her life. You can't convince me that's a teneble system, or even a good idea.

But you're right about the morons robbing it. It should be considered as the biggest travesty in American politics, but instead people seem to think it was bound to happen eventually.

You can look at this like you look at life insurance...

You can buy a policy for $100,000 and die the following week. So you paid $25 to start your policy and your family got $100,000 in pay-outs. If you look at it that way, insurance companies could never make it.
But you need to look at the big picture, people buy policies all the time yet never collect. The insurance companies depend on people buying policies that they will let lapse at some point, that is factored into the costs.
It's the same way with social security. Just look at how many people pay their entire lives into the system and die before they collect, or die shortly after. Insurance and social security would never succeed if it was based on a 1 in 1 out system. Not to mention the investing that goes on with the premiums, years of investing that adds value to the funds.

So how is it, that insurance companies can offer you $100,000 in coverage for a measly $25/month? Remember, it would take 333 years at $25/month to acquire $100,000... the math doesn't add up

 

[skyblue]

personally i'd be over-joyed if BP has to compensate lost livelyhoods and for the clean-up.....as long as moneys kept out of official hands where it doesn't belong