Il Douche INDEED! What a douche!
Posted on 06/16/2010 6:48:32 AM PDT by opentalk
In his first-ever address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, President Barack Obama said he was going to “inform” the chairman of BP that he must surrender the company’s money to an independent party that will distribute it to people and businesses determined to have been harmed by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The president’s declaration raises a serious constitutional question about his authority: Where does the president get the lawful power to order any private-sector company—BP or any other—that it must surrender its money? Should not courts and normal legal proceedings determine who is responsible, who has been harmed, and who owes what to whom in regards to the Gulf oil spill?
...What rights do the stockholders in BP have to due process of law to protect their property? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Does Obama think he can “inform” persons and corporations to surrender or exchange their property without due process of law?
...Tomorrow,” Obama said, “I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Noone will challenge his authority to extort money from BP.
“the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.”
Begs the question, which of his union pals or Chi town thugs will be in charge of this fund? Then, how much should BP expect to pay them for their extortion “services” on demand?
Obama is reputedly a lawyer. He should have some awareness of the legal ramifications of what he is doing. He either doesn’t know what he’s doing in this case, or doesn’t care.
RKBA,I guess I have somehow been transported into a weird parallel universe. How can bond holders just have their money stolen and lose in court other than the FIX is in thanks to the feds.
Constitution? Oh...THAT! The author doesn’t seem to understand. That Constitution thingy is just so...so PRE- Hussein!!!
The Marxists insist that foreign terrorists get complete Constitutional protection of course. They made the point the Johns Adams defended a uniformed British soldier for his conduct during the Boston Massacre.
But the ends always justify the means, this is where the Marxist is consistent. This “escrow” account will be nothing more than a Democrat slush fund used for political payoffs. Might as well deposit the money directly into ACORN and OFA since he has already shredded the Constitution.
I don’t think it’s being approached from the perspective of delivering an order. For $20 billion, BP would have nothing to lose by fighting it out in the courts.
BUT if BP turns out to be amenable to paying for the SLUSH FUND, then I’d be willing to bet there’s been some sort of sweetheart deal cooked up with the company.
Question: so what’s the quid pro quo? Rolling over on criminal prosecutions? Limiting liability?
In many ways, each new big sh!tty from 0’bammy, each new outrage only conditions us more so to all this bs!
At best, maybe there will be an election in November, and again maybe in 2012—so what! So, we will still only get our pseudo choice of a lesser of evils will start all over again—though not at the point where we left off b4 in-yer-face marxism came upon us, and we will never go back beyond whre we are now.
In some ways maybe we’re better off w/an outright marxist to remind us, though we will never do anything about it, save vote (if we have the opportunity again)for another lesser of evils.
Semper Bvllsh!t!!!!!
You guys are taking 0bama way too seriously. Last night was bluster from a Chicago thug. He was mainly saying it for effect, though insofar as he can do anything, he will; and there is much a POTUS can do, legally.
He’s telling BP to put up cash or else he will make life uncomfortable for them. He’s aiming a pistol at their feet and telling them to dance, or else.
But the main reason is to maintain his mojo. If he loses that, nothing else matters. He needs to come off sounding tough, magical, powerful.
It would also help him if BP were already making plans to do what he’s demanding.
“How can bond holders just have their money stolen and lose in court other than the FIX is in thanks to the feds.”
You answered your own question.
While we as conservatives tend to put the courts on an ivory pedestal, they’re almost as politicized as the other branches of government.
What do you expect from a Fascist-Marxist?
“Sounds like something an African dictator would do.”
Or a half-African wannabee dictator.
He doesn’t care about authority — he doesn’t have to. The necessities of our economy and life in general: finance, farming, energy, education, transportation, etc... have all been woven around a web of so called oversight under the guise of protection and safety to the point where rights and legal authority no longer have any meaning. We all have a choice to cooperate or end up on the fringe, unable to function — be a slave or be destitute. That is the choice BP is now facing.
As we are witnessing, the so called safety and protections that supposedly come from government and regulation are mythical. They safeguard nothing and guarantee failure by tearing down incentives for ethical behavior and good citizenship while participants in the sham line their pockets, willfully ignorant of the consequences to the economic and physical well being of the nation.
This condition is not unlike the kind of economic slavery experienced by the founders who had a unique perspective on how and why politics and gorvernment enables mercantilism, then becomes it, and what it does once all integrity and honor is stripped away. It’s all written in the Declaration of Independence. Read the whole document and we can see what our furture will be if we do nothing to alter it. They left all of the to answers this predicament in plain sight because they also understood human nature. They saw the events of today out of the understanding that what they had created may not last despite their best efforts to prevent it — those efforts only have meaning as long as they live in the hearts of “We, the People”.
Here’s a quote from Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia: Query 17:
“But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
Found a couple of other points, it seems this “Emergency Powers” stuff started as far back as the United States Bankruptcy of 1861.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward284.htm
but also available is a pdf from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.pdf
which indicates that there are limits on the Presidential powers during a declared National Emergency or War. (for what it’s worth)
Still seems like a gray area that could be used by any President for any reason!
I wonder if Obama knows this.
Is there an existing process under the rule of law to facilitate payment by BP for its liabilities in this matter? I think the answer is yes. Does Obama have the authority to unilaterally decide and dictate a new process instead of following the existing process under the rule of law? I think the answer is HELL NO!
In other words, maybe we frogs are still in the pot—and although some of us may now want out—the water is approaching the boiling point, but it’s too late...
“I wonder if Obama knows this.”
He was a Constitutional Scholar wasn’t he? ;-)
Il Douche INDEED! What a douche!
All, excellant questions.
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.