Ignoring the people (Bailout Bill Unconstitutional On Its Face)

Talk about lipstick on a pig: the bailout measure, which began as a modest, $700-billion, three-page oink, reached the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday wearing about 450 pages of lipstick. Its maximum final cost was no longer calculable -- after bipartisan negotiations to add "sweeteners" to the thing, to buy it support from various congressional factions.

Americans, and anyone else who happened to be watching (most of the world), got a good taste of what "Congressional oversight" means; to say nothing of the explanation of why, in opinion polls, the U.S. Congress enjoys even less popular esteem than President Bush.

It is not for a Canadian to lecture Americans on U.S. constitutional niceties, but I'm going to do it anyway. Money bills in that country are supposed to originate in the Lower House, as they do in all civilized national jurisdictions. This one effectively originated in the Upper House. In order to disguise this irregularity, the senators had to dress the thing up as a non-money bill. That is how the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" became the more aptly-named "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act" -- by taking a bill already on the floor of the Senate, stripping out its text, and substituting the text of the bailout bill.

"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." This decadent habit of cautiously observing the letter of the law, while purposely ignoring the spirit, is at the root of so many enormities in contemporary politics and society. There are times when, given the complexity of the world, one must honestly bend (never break) a law, interpret it drolly, even turn a blind eye. But one should do such things in the cause of honouring the spirit of the laws, for the sake of justice; not in the cause of subverting them.

This is a problem not only in the U.S. but everywhere. We speak fondly of old-fashioned constitutional democracy, while in fact acknowledging it is a thing of the past. Everything from bloated omnibus bills, to "emergency" executive orders, to court reviews of legislation, is used to subvert a constitutional order, and thereby suppress political formulation of the popular will. The process has advanced to such a degree in Europe, thanks to the extraordinary power of the E.U. legal and political bureaucracies, that national assemblies are rendered powerless to oppose them.

The U.S. House of Representatives had defeated the bailout plan when it was already carrying many times its weight in lipstick. It was defeated because the thing itself was genuinely unpopular. Members of both parties had their switchboards jammed by constituents expressing outrage at the thing. They voted it down, even under the extraordinary pressure brought upon them by the White House and the congressional leadership of both parties. If I may be so old-fashioned, that is what democracy is for: to stop things the people just won't have.

Now, curiously, in the week since that happened, a number of prominent economists have weighed in on the bailout measure, including supporters of both U.S. presidential candidates. It appears that all are appalled by the measure itself, and most consider it to be counter-productive. Some 230 of them signed an open letter to Congress, telling them not to be in a hurry.

Here is how John Cochrane, Myron S. Scholes Professor of Finance in the University of Chicago, characterized the bailout, in an interview with Fox News: "The legislation is like this: some boats are sinking, so rather than bailing those boats out, you blow up the dam and drain the whole lake."

That comment, and many like it, was offered even before "sweeteners" were added, that would in themselves roll any economist's eyeballs.

It is worth adding that not one of the politicians voting on the 450-odd-page bill can possibly have read the whole thing, let alone deeply considered the implications of its parts. Few of them have an understanding of the crisis they are legislating for. The blind are leading the blind.

Call me a populist (few do), but my "two cheers" support for democracy is predicated on the belief that usually, given enough information, and sometimes even when not given enough, the people know in their gut the difference between right and wrong, up and down, fresh meat and gangrene. And when they don't, we're all doomed anyway. I am seldom surprised when, after much research and deliberation, the "experts" finally embrace a carefully qualified equivalent to the knee-jerk view originally expressed on "Main Street."

You're right.

I just went to the House site and looked up the bill for House Resolution HR1424. I see the Senate Amendment SA5686 that changes the title and section headings, relegating the Wellstone Mental Health contents to a section of the bill.

So I guess the Senate pass a House spending bill, it just wasn't the one the House first sent up to them. They stripped out all the content and replaced it with something entirely different from what the House sent them.

I'd think that, normally, the House would instantly reject what the Senate did, but in this case both chambers are controlled by the same party, and they are complicit in this together. I don't think it's unconstitutional because the letter of the law was followe. Usually, disputes over rules are treated as political, and are resolved politically.

I don't like this, but I don't think it's unconstitutional. I could be wrong, but I don't know one would resolve this by other than political means. Go to the Supreme Court? With what charge?

-PJ

There is plenty of evidence that the books of both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were cooked for the benefit of the executives and their congressional co-conspirators. The votes to fix the problem were right down party lines with the Democrats supporting the corrupt status quo. I cannot see how this is not a clear violation of the RICO Act.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. It also provides a civil cause of action for those injured by violations of the act. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted 1970-10-15). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. It was intended to make it easier to prosecute organized crime figures, but has been applied in several other cases as well.

Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.

There is good news for “We the People”. We do not have to depend on a corrupt federal government for action. There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.

Now with the foundations of our economic system under attack we are entrusting those responsible to address the symptoms. The Democrats cry that this is not a time to point fingers all the while they, and their media accomplices place the entire blame on the Bush Administration and the GOP.

I am demanding that the Justice Department begin a full RICO investigation that will not exempt anyone inside or outside of government. I am encouraging those whose businesses were harmed by these culprits file numerous suits against the offending parties. If Raines, Schumer, Dodd, Frank, and the like do not end up penniless and in orange jump suits then we need to seriously reread the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.