The Pay Czar Is Unconstitutional

Wall Street Journal ^ | 10/30/2009 | MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL

[tobyhill]

Last week's announcement that "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg slashed compensation for executives at seven large financial firms by an average of 50% stunned Wall Street, stoked the fires of populist resentment, and troubled economists. Will this government-mandated pay cut drive the most talented professionals away from these companies, endangering their recovery? Does it augur further politicization of economic decisions?

Lost in the arguments over economics and political theory, however, is a more basic question: Was this action constitutional?

Mr. Feinberg's ukase is the most prominent example (and not just by the Obama administration) of the exercise of power by an individual unilaterally appointed by the executive branch without Senate confirmation—and thus outside the ordinary channels of Congressional oversight. Earlier this month, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution conducted hearings into the constitutional basis for this practice, which many see as an end-run around checks and balances. The Obama administration declined Sen. Russ Feingold's (D., Wisc.) invitation to send a witness to the hearing to explain the constitutional basis for its various "czars."

So who is Kenneth Feinberg, and where did he get the power to set pay for executives at private firms?

[uncitizen]

bttt

[Neidermeyer]

The Pay Czar Is Unconstitutional

*************************************

[NEPA]

The Constitution hasn't mattered in this country in a long time which is why the Obama crew figures they can get away with their Marxist extremism. I only hope the transgressions are becoming so egregious that the American people finally take notice. But I doubt it.

[Publius Maximus]

Based solely on the Constitutionality issue of a very large number of his actions and appointments, I think there is at least one impeachable offense. But then, we’d have to impeach Congress too... Pelosi asking “Are you serious?” to a question about the Consitutionality of the federal government mandating that individuals buy a particular product really exposes the illegality of the whole ruling class, not just Obama’s radical shredding of our system.

[fso301]

bump

[ClearCase_guy]

A basic flaw in our system of governance -- we stopped following the Constitution decades ago, and there has been nothing in place to put the brakes on and say "Whoa! What do you think you're doing?!"

I guess people expected the Supreme Court to fill that role -- but they just haven't.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Weird Street Urinal wants its socialism...and eat it, too

Nothing more socialist than paying bonuses, with out tax dollars, to executives of failed companies.

All this whining about their bonuses and salaries being cut is proof that Republicans, Gloablists, etc, are all just socialists in different clothes. Supporting any taxpayer funded bonuses for failed executives of bailed out companies is not conservative

And, absolutely ridiculous to claim that the “talent” from these companies will leave. First, they are not “talent”....their companies FAILED. Let them go look for other jobs....take advantage of the free market. There are plenty of competent people who can take over.

If you support any bonuses paid to failed executives with taxpayer dollars....YOU ARE A SOCIALIST. There is no politically correct way around that

Let the flaming begin....

[gusopol3]

It is no reflection on Kenneth Feinberg, who has a sterling reputation and who appears to have approached these sensitive duties with a spirit of commendable integrity,

Nope, what's Immelt's pay going to be ? Or the union bosses at GM?

[Kolokotronis]

Judge McConnell is simply wrong on this one. In fact, I'm surprised that the good judge hasn't got milk spewing out of his nose basing his theory on Buckley v. Valeo.

I am concerned about the intellectual honesty of any “conservative” who objects to the exercise of the power given to the Sec. of the Treasury to regulate executive compensation in firms which took our money to clean up the financial mess they made. The bailout was bad enough. To now cry constitutional foul when the government moves to prevent the use of our money to pay bonuses to the very crooks and incompetents who tanked these companies is disingenuous at best.

[saganite]

Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ constitution! /s/

[saganite]

The administration is preparing to move beyond regulating pay in failed firms. This is the foot in the door, the camel’s nose under the tent, the tip of the spear, the beginning of the beginning, the etc etc etc.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

The right word is COMMISSAR! Look it up!

Do a Google search for COMMISSAR SOVIET UNION

They should not be called czars.

[Kolokotronis]

“The administration is preparing to move beyond regulating pay in failed firms.”

We’ll see. The last time such controls were imposed were by Nixon in ‘71, if I recall correctly. As I (and I’ll wager a number of other Freepers “of an age”) remember it, that nearly 3 year experiment didn’t work out so well.

[rabidralph]

Who is going to be filing suit over all the unconstitutional actions being taken by this government? I mean, what competent lawyer is available to file suit in our behalf?

[Man50D]

If you support any bonuses paid to failed executives with taxpayer dollars....YOU ARE A SOCIALIST.

You're directing anger at the wrong group. The federal government forced companies to take the bail out First nine banks were forced to take bailouts with the intent on expanding government control. At least one of these companies tried to repay the loan Obama Refuses Repayment of Bank Bailout Funds but the government refused illustrating the the socialist bail out was the means by which to exert more control over free enterprise to destroy our capitalistic economy.

The ruse to make businesses the bad guys worked by convincing people including yourself to target those businesses with your anger. The result is people supporting socialism without being aware it is happening. The socialists thank you.

[tobyhill]

It would have to be someone with standing.

[Publius Maximus]

Lost in the arguments over economics and political theory, however, is a more basic question: Was this action constitutional?

Even more basic question: If true, does anybody care?

I can't shake the feeling that this generation is totally out of touch with the reality of the consequences of losing our republican form of government, which is plainly happening right before our eyes.

[PubliusMM]

An amazing grasp of the painfully obvious. There is a great portion of the Federal government machine that is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, but has allowed to fester in the body politic for a very long time; the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Education, HHS, the FCC, Dept of Transportation, NEA, and on and on. There are hundreds of billions of dollars being spent every year outside the bounds of the US Constitution, and rules on top of rules promulgated by bureaucrats whose jobs have absolutely NO foundation in the Constitution.

It’s time to stop this madness and rein in government; push it back within the confines of the Constitution and reclaims the greatness of this grand experiment.

It’s time to take back the country.

[Swing_Thought]

The administration is preparing to move beyond regulating pay in failed firms. This is the foot in the door, the camel’s nose under the tent, the tip of the spear, the beginning of the beginning, the etc etc etc.

Yup, and just as when you sleep with dogs you get fleas, when corporations sleep with politicians they get... well... readers can fill in the blank.