U.S. Constitution 1787 – 2009

Congress just passed a law doing President Obama’s bidding, that of ‘getting those bonuses back.’ These are the same bonuses that the President approved when he signed that stimulus bill on Friday the 13th. That was also the day that the media watchdog died.

constitution-rest-in-peace

If the day comes that this bill passes the Senate and Obama signs it, that will be the day that our Constitution died.

related link: UPDATE:Sen Reid: Senate Should Take Up AIG Bill Before Apr 6

0 thoughts on “U.S. Constitution 1787 – 2009”

  1. I’ll grant you the point that everyone in Washington is covering their own asses. Harry Shearer on his radio show yesterday called it something like “the always-entertaining spectacle of legislators rushing to emulate the indignation of their constituents.”

    I’ll also agree that this was all rushed through, so quickly, though I’ll note that the previous Treasury Department was leading the charge. I’m still not sure some (or all) of these bailouts were really necessary, that AIG for instance was “too big to fail.” But folks who have a lot more power and make a lot more money than I do say that it was necessary. Who am I to disagree?!

  2. A few points I’ll make:

    Those “wages” were paid with tax dollars, basically. The federal government owns AIG. The management of AIG paid out those bonuses despite being directed to withhold them by the federal government. The excise tax is a way to right that mistake. The individual recipients did nothing wrong — at least nothing legally wrong — but that doesn’t change the fact that they are in receipt of money that they should not have received.

    It’s not private property that they’ve received. It’s public property, public funds. Look at the bonus payouts as “stolen merchandise.” If your friend gives you a stolen TV, but you don’t know that it’s stolen, you haven’t done anything legally wrong, but you still have to give up the TV when the cops show up.

    Secondly, keep in mind that Congress passed this excise tax. President Obama has no authority to levy any tax.

    1. I see your point about the employees giving up their bonuses to the government if you look at it as ‘government property’ and not ‘their wages.’

      I can’t make the leap that their wages and bonuses go from being their property to public property just because the government decides to stuff taxpayer money into their business. Their wages are their wages, under contract no less, no matter who owns the company. And didn’t you know, that it was Obama, Geithner, and Dodd who saw to it that those employees would get their bonuses by stuffing it into the stimulus bill, that Obama didn’t want anyone to read. The talk from the politicos on both sides of the aisle is feign indignation when they say stuff like ‘you should do the right thing and give that money back.’ What they are doing is just trying to cover their own political ass.

      The plan was to play out those bonuses already committed and owed, and to change the pay policy going forward. But as the details of the players became known, a whole other can of worms was opened, exposing the character of those involved.

      The fact that Congress passed such an action against private citizens is preposterous on its own. True, they’re the ones that make tax policy. It’s no wonder we have the tax system we have. But Obama doesn’t have to sign it. He ought to veto it.

      If we learned anything from this it is this. When politicians can agree to pass legislation so fast that no debate needs to occur, RESIST.

  3. No. It’s very simple. I’m saying those people got those bonuses legally, and, AND, btw, with the full knowledge of this administration. That’s number one. Number two, it isn’t theirs (the govt’s) to say what those employees, private citizens, can do or not do with their own wages.

    So for the federal government to make special legislation aimed at individual, law abiding citizens, that will confiscate their personal property can not be consistent with their, make that Our, constitutional rights. I believe we have the protection of the constitution to prevent that. Thirdly, I have a BIG problem with that.

    These people are denied due process under our constitution. If they did something wrong, than arrest them, charge them, and take it to court. But that did not happen. The very thought of this bunch of lawmakers creating a tax that will confiscate the private property of selected citizens would, like I said, make the founding fathers turn in their grave. They left the Crown for a reason, and this is one of them.

    Obama took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. How does what he is doing square with that oath? This isn’t even a matter of policy, which is always arguable. This is Obama flat-out ignoring his responsibility for a political objective. And from a man whose constitutional law background was a resume enhancement, it makes me wonder if he’s using the same one I am? He isn’t supposed to invent his own version of the constitution. He is supposed to protect and defend it. That’s what I’m saying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *