Chrysler and the Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Desertrat, May 4, 2009.

  1. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #1
    As many have suspected, Obama may have overstepped the bounds:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/04/senior-creditors-chrysler-deal-violates-5th-amendment/

    "The heart of the argument starts on page 8 (via HA commenter Outlander):

    III. The Taking of Collateral through a Direct or Indirect Use of TARP Authority is Unconstitutional.

    13. The Treasury Department relies on TARP as the purported authority to justify the disparate treatment under the 363 Sale, even though TARP was enacted after the Senior Lenders’ liens on the Debtors’ property were already in place. The Supreme Court long ago recognized, however, that a secured creditor’s interest in specific property is protected in bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935)."

    And:

    "15. Relying on purported authority provided by TARP, the Treasury Department is demanding that Chrysler’s assets be stripped away from the coverage of the Senior Lenders’ liens – thereby impairing the rights of the Senior Lenders to realize upon those assets – so that those assets may be put in New Chrysler and used to the benefit of unsecured creditors in this proceeding, who will then be paid much more than the Senior Lenders.

    But, even assuming that TARP provides the Treasury Department with authority to provide funding to the Debtors and impose the transfer of collateral away from the Senior Lenders, TARP was enacted long after the Senior Lenders contracted with the Debtors and received senior liens on the Debtors’ property. Radford specifically disallowed the use of a law to retroactively alter existing liens on property."

    It will be interesting to watch the "official spin" on this one.

    'Rat
     
  2. techfreak85 macrumors 68040

    techfreak85

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Location:
    Places
    #2
    i think the whole USA pretty much owning GM and Chrysler is too far anyway IMO.
     
  3. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #3
    After the past 8 years, you're picking on THIS as unconstitutional?
     
  4. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #4
    I posted this in the rumor of Chrysler bankruptcy thread, about Chapter 11.



    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/usc_sec_11_00001126----000-.html

    Since the gov't is a creditor in Chrysler, they have a say on to approve Chrysler's plan or not. Combining the gov't, UAW, and the TARP lenders, it brings the vote past the 2/3's vote required to pass the plan. And from what I hear, only 4 creditors didn't approve the plan( small ones at that). The UAW, TARP lenders, and the feds all agreed to the plan before Chrysler filed for Chap. 11.

    So I don't see anything illegal if the majority of the bondholders agreed to Chrysler's( which is really GM's) plan.......
     
  5. PcBgone macrumors 6502

    PcBgone

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    #5
  6. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #6
    Don't have anything insightful to add? Just bash Bush! Yay! It's the easy answer to all the hard questions, right?
     
  7. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #7
    Who said anything about Bush?

    I just pointed out what should have been the obvious fact that in the past 8 years your constitution has been thrown to the wolves in order to strip away your freedoms in the shallow guise of protecting you all from the big bad boogy man.

    Now here you have a president that is desperately tying to save your beleaguered economy from itself and is apparently bending the rules ever so slightly to do so, and all of sudden you care.

    The hypocrisy is as painful as it is stupid. It appears that YOUR easy answer to all the hard questions is to pretend that I'm wrong.

    Cheers
     
  8. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    And who might I ask, was the leader during the past 8 years? You don't have to say the name "Bush" to be speaking about Bush. Better yet who might I ask, is the current leader who might just be overstepping the bounds of the constitution as we speak and are able to address it?

    SLC
     
  9. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #9
    I think that is a (valid) issue for another thread.

    I take any violation of the Constitution seriously, not just those which occur for national security reasons. If what the Obama Administration did is in violation of the 5th Amendment, then it should be given no more respect than any other unconstitutional act.

    We (and that includes me) derided the Bush Administration for abusing the 4th Amendment in the name of our safety, and if we are going to do the same for Obama and the 5th Amendment then we are doing the same thing, only this time it is for economic safety.

    That said, however, I don't know just how "unconstitutional" this is. Aside from what quagmire posted, I think the fact that TARP granted generally broad authority means that this will also be valid. This would have been a bigger problem if Obama had attempted to seize assets without Congressional approval, as the power of eminent domain (and lesser powers related to that like bankruptcy in which the US is an equity holder) are reserved for Congress.
     
  10. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    "Now here you have a president that is desperately tying to save your beleaguered economy from itself and is apparently bending the rules ever so slightly to do so, and all of sudden you care."

    Unfortunately, the methodology of this effort of saving the economy is 180 degrees off course. Granted, Bush/Congress/Paulson began the wrong-way path, but Obama/Congress/Geithner has been busily exacerbating the problem.

    And the takeovers of GM & Chiseler won't help, other than to buy votes with tapayer dollars. If they weren't profitable in the past, how will they be profitable in the future? What magic is envisioned? The fundamental problems still exist.

    Bending rules in the past justifies bending rules here and now? This is "change"?
     
  11. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #11
    I don't disagree. I'm merely taken aback at the selective indignation that some americans have when it comes to violations of the constitution. Especially when the magnitudes and potential implications of the violations are so massively different.
     
  12. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #12
    so if this is unconstitutional what happens to the fiat-chrysler deal ? will chrysler now get the debt back ? which would mean fiat pulling out...
     
  13. cjm3113 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    #13
    How is an assault weapons ban unconstitutional? People do not use assault weapons for hunting, self defense, or sport. They were designed for killing. They are used by military personnel to kill. They were not even existent when the 2nd amendment was created. The amendment which grants you a right to bear arms - not to bear automatic weapons.

    If anything - I think our constitution needs some modernizing.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Sorry, but that was completely relevant. You cannot deny that you all stood by and silently watched Bush trample the Constitution. Then this comes up and suddenly your undies are in a bunch. I for one would really like to know why. None of you said a damn thing when Bush did it. I'm not bashing Bush, I'm bashing the hypocrisy of conservatives.

    FYI- I haven't been in favor of any of the bailouts.
     
  15. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #15
    Pissing on the Constitution: IOKIYAR
     
  16. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #16
    Just like under Bush the same facilitator exists, Congress.

    For all the trampling that Bush supposedly did we are not worse off are we? Let alone did it affect all Americans as what the new chimp in the WH is doing?

    Take your hyperbole back to the playground, making comments that cannot be proven one way or another is the sign of someone who is too emotional to discuss the article at hand.

    BACK TO THE OP

    As I posted on another thread, I am so happy to see Obama and gang getting bitched slapped. Theses guys have gone further off the deep end in less time than Bush and Co and the reason why they have is because the press and Congress is not calling him on it.

    He uses the bully pulpit of the Presidency against OTHER AMERICANS. We don't need this arrogant jerk in office. When he doesn't get his way he goes on TV to vilify those who don't agree with him. He stirs up essentially what should be labeled as unrest to intimidate opposing people to back down.

    So when does he invade some religious compound or use snipers against fellow Americans.... like the last guy... oops, the guy before him.
     
  17. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #17
    Fiat cant afford to go on with the deal anyway, it transpired yesterday that it needs 8 Billion from the EU bank to do it, which they aren't going to lend. Its like Apple saying, hey Microsoft's in trouble, lets buy them!, yeah great idea.... slight money issue.
     
  18. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #18
    Let's face it, we just need to admit that Obama is the anti-christ.
     
  19. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #19
    I hope you meant that chimp comment in jest as how we called Bush a monkey....... As you should know back in the election, this was a very racist slur to describe Obama.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    The fact that conservatives like you are now worried about the POTUS authorizing potentially unconstitutional acts is certainly a "change" from the past 8 years.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    Hi kettle, you're black.

    Excuse me? NOT ONCE have you come into this forum with one useful thing to say. You post and run constantly with nothing but snarky comments.

    How much worse off are we? Are you KIDDING ME? Do you not see the huge mess that Bush left behind? Oh, I know, it's all Clinton's, Obama's and congress's fault. Bush was completley innocent and a good conservative. :rolleyes:
     
  22. Desertrat thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    Repeat after me: "Bush left a mess for Obama to clean up." Okay? Everybody happy, now?

    That has damn-all to do with Chrysler. It has to do with HOW Obama is going about dealing with the financial problems of the big corporations. The efforts to date appear to be helpful primarily to his large campaign contributors and supporters: The big Wall Street investment banks and the UAW. And it is being done at taxpayer expense.

    quagmire, a gazillion folks could vote on the settlement process, but if it's illegal the vote is meaningless.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19ef5026-38b8-11de-8cfe-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

    "The four banks that hold the bulk of the debt – JPMorgan, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs – accepted the offer under strong political pressure. All four have received emergency government aid through the troubled asset relief programme.

    The dissident group includes about 20 money managers, among them Oppenheimer Funds and Stairway Capital Management."

    So the four biggies were blackmailed. Nice folks, that White House bunch. The dissident group has the "freedom" to obey the law insofar as fiduciary responsibilities toward their own investors.

    Basically, in order to reward the UAW for its voting support, Obama wants to shaft those who invested in the lending institutions: Pension funds, health insurance companies, 401ks and the like. "Yeah, you loaned them money, and they owe you, but tough stuff. I don't care about court decisions." And trying to excuse him on the basis that his advising lawyers didn't know about "Radford" is just another sign of the general incompetence we see on a daily basis.
     
  23. jonbravo77 macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #23
    Ok, someone explain to me how any of this violates the 5th amendment? In reference to the link rat provided in his original post.

    Wikipedia

    Sorry, don't see how "debt" could be considered private property if that is indeed where they are trying to go with this one. And I do think that the companies that are involved have been compensated with being bailed out of the mess they made. Don't see what part of the constitution is being violated. But I'm sure someone will explain it to me in a logical manner and refrain from flaming me... HAHAHA, right... :D
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    No- I'm not. I want to know why you weren't starting threads about bailouts when Bush did it. I also want to know where the tea parties were then. The fact is that for most people, this issue is about partisanship and politics, nothing more. I find it extremely disturbing, disingenuous and I'm tired of it.

    Again- I've been against bailouts form the beginning. But all this sudden "concern" from conservatives is really telling. And of course, no mention of the bank bailouts. Nobody on the right seems to be talking about how crappy that deal was. Instead, let's talk about the auto companies. It's ridiculous and obvious.
     
  25. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #25
    I for one, was busy starting a new semester in school. And on here I believe we were all knee deep in McCain vs Obama. Perhaps that had something to do with it.

    Plus none of us knew at the time, just how far all this bailout crap was going to go!

    SLC
     

Share This Page