Login HereJack Balkin has been conducting a fascinating series of discussions on the question of "living Constitutionalism" -- the "process of change through which constitutional doctrine responds to social and political mobilizations and long term changes in popular opinion about what the Constitution means." As we grapple with the Bush/Cheney Administration's actions to further their unilateral executive objectives, we have confronted -- time and again -- the questions of checks and balances and accountability. And the lack thereof for far too long, far too often.
In response to Jack's series, Marty points out the gaping hole of inconsistent argument in unilateral executive power grabs -- the power of the Federal Reserve and the unconstitutionality thereof:
But where are the unitary executive proponents -- in the Administration and among the academic and other champions of Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson -- when it comes to the most important and powerful "independent" agency of them all, the Federal Reserve? Nowhere to be found, far as I can tell. Indeed, apparently they see no problem in expanding the purview of the Fed even further, to give it virtually unreviewable regulatory authority over additional sectors of the economy.
To be fair, in a footnote in an Arkansas Law Review article in 1994, Steve Calabresi, one of the leading proponents of the unitary executive theory, conceded that under his view the statutory independence of the Fed is unconstitutional. (Calabresi also argued that such legal independence is unnecessary, because even without statutory insulation from the President, a "practical independence can always be achieved within our formal constitutional structure if public opinion thinks it desirable that it should exist" -- a conclusion that does not contend with the distinct possibility that the public expectation of Fed independence is largely a function of the fact that the Fed has been legally immune from executive control for so many decades: Before Congress limited the President's removal power in 1935, there was no expectation of independence -- the Fed included the Secretary of Treasury and Comptroller of the Currency as ex officio members so as to preserve executive control specifically to insure that the executive branch would be able to exert an appropriate degree of control over monetary policy, and President Wilson used the threat of removal to influence monetary policy.)
But there's a reason that concession is buried in a footnote. If Calabresi's is truly the view of the unitary executive proponents, they don't speak about it much in mixed company -- because to do so would reveal the radical nature of their otherwise reasonable-sounding theory: Taken seriously, Justice Scalia's widely admired arguments in Morrison would call into question the independence of the Fed and many other agencies that the public now assumes will and should act independently of White House control. And to question the constitutionality of these agencies at this late date would be to sound the death-knell for the unitary executive theory . . .
Lawyers are trained to consider all sides of an issue before formulating their arguments, especially those which call their own theories or client needs into sharp question. When you do not do so, the logical inconsistencies in your arguments stick out like neon signs of incompetence.
What the Bush/Cheney legal architects have done is to put their desired conclusions before honest assessments, time and time again ignoring any pesky facts or laws or principles which made what they were doing untenable and unsustainable. The resulting stew in which we all find ourselves is that the rule of law is subordinated to the whims of the chief executive -- no matter how logically inconsistent or damaging they may be.
As I said yesterday, the conservative chestnut that they abhor judicial activism lacks honesty. What they mean is they vehemently disagree with judges whose reasoning is liberal in its bent, and that they will do everything in their power to make certain no judges who do not think the "right" way get on the bench.
(YouTube of Associate Justice Breyer at a forum on executive power during war. Fascinating clip, and one that journalists would do well to watch.)
Share This 
Spotlight
mornin
Morning — how’s tricks? Personally, I could use more coffee… *G*
Good Morning Christy!
Good morning, Christy! Hope all is well Chez Redhedd.
Morning. I’ve volunteered to watch JoeLie for all those with more sensitive stoma
JoeLie: John McCain=John Kennedy
Did Obama vote against Kyl/Lieberman or was he absent? JoeLie said he voted against.
bom dia, pups
Solai, how are you able to supress the gag reflex while watching Lieberman?
Good Morning Redd,
I have often wondered why more lawyers aren’t showing outrage with this obvious shredding of the Constitution.
I mean, we, the DFH’s in our bathrobes in our mother’s basement, see these things. Why the lack of activism from a population that knows how to use the judicial system to effect change?
morning all….have we atacked Iran yet?
Obama voted no
he voted against iirc
oops, he wasn’t present for the vote but says he would have voted against it
Mornin’, Christy.
As a generalization I think the Republicans want a government more representative of Hamilton’s elitist views. Africans were a commodity upon which much of the wealth was dependent. DixieCrats switched to the Republican Party because the Democrats decided to include African-Americans as part of its constituency. The Republican Party is an unabashed racist segment of the population. A lot of lip service but nothing of substance. No Republican AA members of Congress? I wonder how many AA staffers Republican elected officials have.
Hmmm, coffee. Off to man the French press.
You’re my heroine.
As I said yesterday, the conservative chestnut that they abhor judicial activism lacks honesty. What they mean is they vehemently disagree with judges whose reasoning is liberal in its bent, and that they will do everything in their power to make certain no judges who do not think the “right” way get on the bench.
——————-
and this has ENDLESS ramifications imo
surprise!
joelie, lies.
T’aint easy
my memory sukks obviously
Have you missed our monthly series with Alliance for Justice or the many articles we’ve done in conjunction with the ACLU about all of this? Or the EFF/ACLU challenges on FISA? Or the revolt of the JAG corps on the MCA? Or…
In other words, there is a lot fo pushback from lawyers. It just isn’t important enough for the media to emphasize for the most part.
Raven and pups.
Thank you so much for helping me with the Saturn Intermittant Npn-Start issue. i have bookmarked the links you went me to and will print out when i take car to shop. i really appreciate the community spirit here - you all are good neighbors.
Pretty good, trying to help the bride with all the issues a broken leg bring to a fanatic gardener!
Gear heads unite!
Man, if I drank more coffee, I would make a tad more sense. Solai, Obama’s position was that he was against it, however, he was not present the day the bill came up for a vote.
It’s over. Very short interview. Never asked about campaign finance, dementia or general ignorance.
It pains JoeLie that he has to align with the repubs but he’s dismayed that the dems have become sooo leftwing and hyper-partisn.
I bow to your innard strength. Neither my stomach or intestinal track can deal with him
Great post Christy, a lot to absorb there.
From one of your prior AJF series I am once again reminded of this great vid.
Quiet Revolution: Part One — Strategy
thank you for taking the hit for the rest of us.
*hands solai a lavish bouquet*
except that obama didn’t show up for the vote.
(for references on this see my comments at @67 and @111 in this thread)
thanks solai! (handing over the puking bucket)
have to leave you fine pups…read this on another blog…sad
The politicians were benefiting so why would they care. This is the S & L all over again. Everyone knew when Ronnie Raygun allowed the S&L’s to fall under the same rules as banks in guaranteeing loans that it would be a fiasco. Neil Bush loaned $65 million to a guy who put up 200 acres of desert and a 5 year old cadillac. The loaner never repaid or went to jail and Neil got bailed out. Did they split the money. Only George and Babs know for sure. This is a scam and when Bush tells you there is no money for child health care, no money to rebuild bridges, no money for a real education, no money to provide proper armor on humvees, no money for proper body armor for our troops, no money for vets healthcare, no money to do anything remember they gave away hundreds of billions of $ for the richest motherfuckers in America. Keep voting GOP you blind, stupid, NASCAR loving, christian hypocritical assholes. You will be eating dog turds and beer if McStain gets elected.
Hey Raven, were you in Dong Tam when WESTCHESTER COUNTY was holed by a swimmer and had to beach at the LST ramp to keep from sinking?
Solai - ahem..if I had a stoma, I’m sure it would be darned sensitive. And, I for one, appreciate your willingness to do the dirty jobs…
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess this is in response to my 131 downstairs, and I agree.
All this talk about Sen. Obama reaching Reagan Democrats is nonsense.
They’re never gonna vote for him anyway.
I would not retain Bush’s legal architects to handle a jay-walking ticket.
Their theory of a unitary executive is ignorance on steroids. Apparently they were sleeping in 7th grade civics when Article I of the Constitution was discussed along with the concept of checks and balances.
Actually, along with Andrew Jackson, I do not agree with an independent Fed.
Did you like that comment? That’s what happens when you’re trying to listen, type and submit all at the same time.
How does Marcy do it?
is that true? haven’t there have been several primaries in open states (where traditionally independent or R voters can vote in the D primaries)? i’d think by now we’d have some data to look at….
Which post? I started out in Talking Heads this morning. Funny though, #131 in that post was a question as to why Lieberman headed a committee that I answered because Reid is a fool.
I am not sure what the argument is here. Why should this Administration seek to exert overt control over an organization that has done its bidding? Both Greenspan and Bernanke have bent over backwards to grease the wheels for the Administration’s friends in the financial markets both on the upside and the downside of the housing bubble. The changes that Treasury Secretary Paulson (who was at Goldman Sachs before joining the Administration) has proposed would increase the Fed’s “scrutiny” but not impose any new regulations leaving the players like hedge funds and investment banks the freedom to do this to us all over again.
As for the Constitutionality of the Fed, well so called independent agencies like the Post Office have been around since the Founding. To argue that the Fed is unconstitutional seems a trifle abstruse to me. In a few months, the Supreme Court is set to decide that the 2nd Amendment means something completely different from what the Founders intended. That seems a much clearer example of overreach. You might argue that SCOTUS is independent of the Executive as well, an independent branch, but I would ask is that really true. Or is it that this SCOTUS will be independent only when a Democrat is in the White House? Because it doesn’t look like it is operating independently of this Executive.
Not being a lawyer, I was tuned into “This American Life” yesterday as Ira Glass presented a few stories about how the Unitary Executive theory has filtered down into every crevice of governmental process. I think the show is called “The Audacity of Government” (one of their most misleading titles, but the show is very good). I would like to know what the legal minds here think of it.
i think the question applies equally well to the SCOTUS or the FED and gives the same answer: independent of D executive control, but not R.
The argument is that the Fed is outside the control of the unilateral executive, operates on its own and, therefore, under their own argument framework is a renegade branch which must be quelled.
Except they like what the Fed does, so nothing to see here…
GW CLUSTERFUCK warming up airforce one for a series of “farewell” visits around the world. World leaders say that they’re very anxious to say farewell to the ADD pres. Clusterfuck rates em all as he schedules the visits—lookin deep into their souls and sayin who’s naughty and who’s nice…
Bye bye asshole!!
One of the episodes in the “This American Life” show was about the supposedly independent commission created by Teddy Roosevelt to patrol the border between the US and Canada. There job is to keep people from building on a 20 ft buffer between the two countries. An international treaty was signed to make them “independent” of the President and that independence was supposedly assured by International Treaty—until Bush came along. His Justice Dept declared the US Representative works for America and specifically for the President and he has to do what the President says and the President says a certain American property holder who build a dog-run infringing on the buffer could keep his damn dog-run on the buffer. Sounds trivial. It isn’t. The US appointee to the Commission wondered why after all this time the independence of his role is challenged.
World leaders have a new response ta GW Clusterfuck: “Who the hell cares what YOU think? Whaddo Obama and Hill have ta say about it? Go fuckyerself now- ya hear?”
solai at 6-”JoeLie: John McCain=John Kennedy”
well, i guess if the cindy look-alike lobbyist stories are true, then that part is accurate. quite a stretch, even for lie-berman.
=======
from christy up top-”the power of the Federal Reserve and the unconstitutionality thereof: ”
PLAN WOULD EXPAND FED’S POWER TO INTERVENE IN FINANCIAL CRISIS
The Federal Reserve would have the power to regulate virtually the entire
financial industry under a Treasury Department proposal to be announced
Monday.
… FULL STORY: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/.....index.html
they had one last hen house to pillage……….this is more brazen than anything they have done, in my opinion.
rabid weasels.
if i understand hugh’s point…. if the current administration were to explicitly take control of the Fed, nothing (policy-wise) would change for this administration because the Fed does not, in practice act independently of a republican adminsitration. but the difference would be huge for a democratic administration - because then a dem would have control of the Fed… instead of what happened when bill clinton became president and the Fed suddenly remembered they were supposed to be independent of the executive.
in effect what we seem to have is a Fed that is constantly under control by an R executive - regardless of who is actually in office. why would the Rs want to change that and give the Ds occasional control?
Is it true that Obama asked for Lieberman to be his mentor in the Senate?
And I don’t wuite understand how Bush or his Treasury can call the Fed independent and at the same time tell them how to reform banking. What standing does he have? He appoints the Fed Reserve Chairman. Like he appoints the US Border Representative.
What the Fed does is not subject to transparency or accountability. They don’t keep public records. Giving them more authority to muck around and account only for their own interests is just plain stupid.
I knew as soon as I clicked “submit comment” you would be all over me like a cheap suit, and deservedly so. Of course, I’ve caught most of the above.
I think my frustration lies in your second paragraph…
It just isn’t important enough for the media to emphasize for the most part.
Are there things to do legally that force this into the media spotlight? Like, oh I don’t know, impeachment hearings?
What if we just went right for the throat, prove high crimes and misdemeanors. There’s so much more to work with here than Watergate’s “Third Rate Burglary.”
Waiting for the MSM to focus on these issues… well, it just ain’t gonna happen.
The point is that federal monetary policy by an originalist interpretation doesn’t exactly allow for a wholly independent agency. But they are fine with it because what the Fed does makes them happy.
I’m not arguing that the Fed doesn’t make them happy. I’m arguing that their “legal theories” are hypocritically inconsistent — which is what Marty is saying as well if you read his entire piece and not just my excerpt. This wasn’t meant to be a nitpicky point, but merely a wholesale hypocrisy observation — things mean whatever they want them to mean when it suits them, and they ought to be called on it from time to time.
OT I wonder now that Sadr has called for his supporters to stand down if Bush and McCain are going to try to portray this as some kind of victory. OK rhetorical question. Because the reality is that Sadr has shown (to Iraqis and everyone else in the region) that Maliki and Hakim even with US backing don’t have the forces to match him and that he can stop them cold whenever he feels like it. I’m gusesing the only groups too stupid and ideologically invested not to see this are Bush-Cheney, McCain, and Petraeus.
abso-fucking-lutely! the more the better.
ding ding ding
I don’t think that the fed can do what Bush is proposing without congressional approval- so Bush is just tryin to sell a bill of goods.
Reminds me of Cher’s “farewell tours” - i think she is still going strong on those.
“Think I’ll go say goobye ta ol pooty-poot- he always has good dinners!”
World leaders struggle through their tears as the farewell tour proceeds.
Oh, I think a lotta folks say good bye and then never leave.
Reminds of the old Dan Hicks song, How can I miss you if you won’t go away.
But if the Fed wanted to follow the Bush program anyway (on “its own” so-to-speak) , how would anybody know? As I understand it, the non-commercial banks (the Wall Street creations that compete outside normal bank regulation) are the problem Bush is trying to address. I can see how Congress might have a role in legitimizing the regulatory power of the Fed. But the Fed is member banks already intimate with the large Wall Street houses that they “compete” with–they are already partners at the corporate levels. What stops the Fed members from “doing the right thing” anyway?
hugh at 52 says in part-”Because the reality is that Sadr has shown (to Iraqis and everyone else in the region) that Maliki and Hakim even with US backing don’t have the forces to match him and that he can stop them cold whenever he feels like it”
and, the shiites pulled out of parliament last week, too, which isn’t being mentioned.
then hugh says-” I’m gusesing the only groups too stupid and ideologically invested not to see this are Bush-Cheney, McCain, and Petraeus.”
gonna be kind of hard for them to move that oil bill through parliament without the shiites there.
military wing held up. political wing held up.
stalemate.
i’m waiting for checkmate. hope it’s soon.
On the whole and in general, the Constitution is a remarkable document, but in its nooks and crannies there is a lot that reeks and creaks. I see the Fed as part of the wriggle room. It was meant to be only one part of a financial system and a set of laws.
In the current crisis, this idea of turning it into some super oversight watchdog is I think mostly PR and spin. Cosmetic changes to the Fed will not fix and protect markets. What is needed is replacement of the legal framework of which the Fed was a part and which has been dismantled, like Glass-Steagall.
hehehehe…How can I miss you when you won’t go away?
Damn straight. That should be the theme song for anyone who despises this Administration, because you KNOW that Bush, Cheney, et al. are not going to disappear. i really am afraid that we’ll go through another Jerry Ford-esque thing from whoever comes in and one or two election cycles from now, we will be seeing these lizards coming up for air …again.
Do you have a link for the Shi’ite exit from parliament? I missed that somehow. Timing here may be significant.
On a related topic, SCOTUS ruled against Bush in Bush v. Texas, a case involving a U.S. obligation under a Senate-ratified treaty to inform a foreigner’s embassy if he got into serious legal trouble. SCOTUS ruled that a president is powerless to enforce such treaties unless and until Congress passes enabling legislation. That seems at odds with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI:
This means, for example, that the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Convention have no enforceability over and above McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) and the Military Commissions Act (MCA).
we will be seeing these lizards coming up for air …again.
Well, yeah, and in my opinion, that’s part of the problem. We can’t cut off their air supply, ’cause then we all will suffocate.
We are, whether we like it or not, all connected.
Ya know what I mean?
Many lawyers have, including international corporate lawyer Scott Horton, First Amendment litigator Glenn Greenwald, and the usually staid American Bar Association and Bar of the City of New York. So have institutionally conservative lawyers in the military, State and Defense departments, who have spoken out, left government service or been driven out for disagreeing with this administration over its treatment of detainees and US and international legal norms.
The administration ignores them, demotes them, fires them and impugns their integrity. As it did with the fired US Attorneys. As it does with Congress. As it does with recalcitrant professional bureaucrats who refuse to “get with the program”.
What’s missing is mainstream reporting about this widespread and deeply troubling phenomenon. The MSM can’t frame it without calling the president a liar, which it adamantly refuses to do. An inertia on which Rove and Cheney built this administration’s lawlessness. True, few have taken to the streets, the final act that may turn us into a banana republic. But lawyers are uniquely placed to work from the inside and it’s a long time until January 20, 2009.
According to the decision, some treaties are “self-enacting” whereas others — such as this one, the 1969 Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations — are not. Consequently, the latter require congressional “enabling” legislation ot be enforceable. Now, you find nothing regarding that in the Constitution, so such a requirement must be out there elsewhere. Case law, maybe?
The other curious aspect here is that Bu’ush had previously had Condi write a letter stating that the U.S. was withdrawing from this treaty anyway.
alibe50 at 48
yes
can’t find my bookmark, so,
google obama lieberman mentor
In the case of that the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, I thing Congress did pass enabling legislation.
There are various kinds of treaties and some of them do need enabling legislation. I don’t know if this was one or if SCOTUS was blowing smoke.
The decision to me seemed like a “heads I win, tails you lose” deal for the Administration. Bush went through the motions of instructing the states, i.e. Texas but I doubt his heart was in it. In return SCOTUS gave him a big wet kiss on blowing off treaty obligations.
Think not thing. Need more coffee.
This post (was changed to #130) in “Talking Heads”
Yes, but it also stated explicitly that the Presidu’unce does not have the plenary power he claims.
That’s exactly what I suspected.
Turns out that even John Yoo filed an Amicus brief arguing against Bush.
That’s a good point. We saw something similar in Hamdan. Although there, the remedy was the infamous Military Commissions Act.
Fu%k Yoo,
He covered his ass and served his Masters well. A name that will live in infamy.
Hey Christy;
Considering the new role some want the Fed to perform, as an oversight agency along with its interest-rate manipulation and money-printing tactics, it would seem to be gaining even more influence, representing something of a 4th branch of government(shades of Dick Cheney!)
I read somewhere that the only reason the Fed is being offered as some sort of new-age fiscal watchdog is because the NEO’s and CEO’s fear that Washington (i.e. Congress) might try to impose much more restrictive watchdogs, so they are scrambling to put their bubba’s in charge before it even starts.
Would this be another Bush Era case of the foxes guarding the henhouse? Or does the Fed represent a reliable broker when it comes to looking into the books that they helped write?
They (The Feds) seem content with bailing out banks, but not “The People” per se, and I wonder does that bank bailout go against the grain of their capitalist creed, as it is applied to the everyday business or citizen?
Shouldn’t these banks, their managers AND their shareholders, be subject to the same market
punishmentfactors that any small business or even an individual homeowner would have to suffer, if they extend themsleves beyond their real limits?Seems to fit right into the pattern of hypocrisy, that demands adherence to a set of rules by the common person, but lets the big guys fudge whenever it is convenient.
Recent changes in our Supreme Court under the guise of anti-abortion and anti-gay activism have actually been made to protect multi-national conglomerates from the rule of law itself. Roberts and Alito in particular.
It may not seem obvious on the surface, but the link between the Fed of the future and our latest lawless Supreme Court manuifestation is a work in progress. They will both enable “Them, the Billionaires” to abuse “We, the People.”
Fits like a glove.
From the MEDELLIN v. TEXAS decision:
southern at 64–didin’t keep it, will see if i can find it. i/m on dial-up, so may take a little while. but for you? i will. (edited last—oh wait, i just remembered, i taped the show last night that had it on it)
and yes, the timing, as always, was everything.
it’s been all over the radio news here, and was on the lehrer report……
go find pbs newshour , sorry, i’m not chasing the link on my dial-up for you. * g *
here, got it, it’s on the tape–
jim lehrer-”in the latest political developments, the iraqi parliament convened an emergency session but the largest shiite bloc refused to participate. it said the government shouldn’t interfere with a law enforcement issue.”
pressure, pressure everywhere, but they aren’t cooperating with maliki. nohow noway.
zebari-foreign minister….”is not a war against a political movement as such…illegal militias challenging the authority of the government”
tell me how come a man, whose native language is not english, would make a statement exactly structured the same as bush? hmmmmmmm, i’m so confused /s
they did a segment later in the show on iraq, but haven’t watched it yet.
“the infamous Military Commissions Act.”
________
Yeah, LOL. Which, unconstitutionally accords the president the final authority to rule on the meaning and applicability of treaties such as Geneva — in direct, explicit contravention of the Judiciary clause.
Figuring out the dream ‘goodbye’ tour . . . Guantanamo, a couple of domestic military prisons, Romania, Diego Garcia, Thailand . . . etc. They arranged a torture tour for Goldsmith, they should do the same for GWB’s GBCW tour. Last stop, Smithsonian to see what is left of the Constitution. Maybe he will be slightly worried that the only thing left untortured is the 2nd amendment.
southern at 64, they tried military, then political…cheney tactics.
my 61, that’s what i was talking about
military wing held up
political wing held up
This comment cuts to the chase of what I’ve been fumbling around trying to get at.
Lawyers are uniquely placed to work from the inside… so why haven’t we seen more results of that?
One example — GSA’s own “Cookies” Doan. We’ve got her dead to rights, and nothing. Isn’t there some legal angle to pursue to get her out of office?
Media would have to cover such proceedings, successful or not, and much additional dirt would have to face sunlight in the process.
In fact, there is so much criminality going on with Darth & Co. it should be Fitzmas every week.
Thanks. I can dig it up with that info.
southern-
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
I would agree. I see most of the current suggested changes as a move to pre-empt regulation of investment banks and hedge funds. Oh yeah right, there will be more oversight looking for “hidden” threats to markets. The joke is that there was nothing hidden about the dangers of the mortgage meltdown. Some experts saw it as early as 2000. Even someone like me who really wasn’t looking at these things at the time knew about it by 2005. So why did it take the Fed et al until the summer of 2007 to react? It is a fraud being perpetrated on us that bubbles are hidden. As I have said before, for a bubble to be a bubble it has to be big enough to have a major impact on markets. To be that big means it has to be huge, something that can be seen literally years away. What Paulson is suggesting is really business as usual with a few cosmetic tweaks for the gormless masses.
my quotes referenced at 82 are from the news summary, am watching the iraq report that was later in the show right now.
And it is for this reason I repeat, Christy, EW, Jane and frequent commentators on legal issues to FDL and EW etc… need a Sunday Show or a weekly in-depth show that brings together the “best” of the lib blogs and creates in-depth reporting like “Frontline” Make our own MSM….Just a thought…
in fact, there is no judiciary decision concerning state law without activism, without activism all that happens is the scotus decides on behalf of the state.
in other words, “judicial activism” is indeed a contradiction of terms
I abhor the definition of correct principles as “liberal”, they are not liberal, they are correct, correct is neither liberal nor Conservative, for if correct, then the case is easily made it conserves the law, it is therefore Conservative more then liberal if we were to apply any logic at all
so, what we really mean here is;
“if a judge decides against this party’s interest, they are considered activist”
that there is the real definition of “activist judge”
Bu’ushCo has spent the last 7 years filling every govt agency with their minions. Think of how many Federalist Society lawyers are in govt now. Each agency has ton of lawyers; what percentage would the right-wingers be? One thing these people learned from the Cold War was how to plant moles. These people are like termites, destroying the structure from within. We’re gonna need a lot of traps to catch all these bastards.
Federalist Society
Skull ‘n Bones
KKK
Do these people have a control issue, or what?
Thanks, BoobyG, for the opinion excerpt. I like how they reference Hamdan. As for the MCA, it is a can of worms and blatantly unconstitutional but SCOTUS invited this to happen
Paulson says the Feds will increase their scrutiny of investment banks but is against regulations and penalties for the executives. The way I see it, We the People just bought Bear Sterns or at very least are the primary investors.
I can’t see why profits Bear Sterns makes cannot go back to pay their debt to the people, like a loan, with interest. There should be some quo for the quid. Was there any quo at all. Perhaps you economic wizards can shed some light on why investment banks get to continue with business as usual and self-regulate. What a deal!
Oops, BobbyG, profound excu