What's Happening to Our Constitution?

[del]

You connies just won't drop it, will you? He's the fucking POTUS. You don't like it - go move to Canada or Mexico. I'm sick and tired of seeing this bullshit.

Get used to it. Less than 2 months into his term melting down won't cut it.

And no, nobody has to move anymore than you lefties did during Bush's 2 terms. We're here to stay, and the 1st Amendment applies to us as equally as it does you lefties.

You people are going to look like idiots. Is Rick Santelli your Cindy Sheehan?

shouldn't you be killing babies in the gaza, tough guy?

 

[Terry]

Our Constituiton is being used at Toilet paper by the mindless left.

 

[Vel]

Knowing what kind of bonuses these CEO's had received in the past, we should have conditioned the bail out money on their giving up those bonuses. It's a crime that these assholes are begging for billions with one hand and putting millions of taxpayer dollars into their own pockets with the other.

I just want to point out.. the guys couldn't touch a red nickle of taxpayer money if our elected officials didn't hand it to them.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

shouldn't you be killing babies in the gaza, tough guy?

ROFLMNAO... So ya feel a Jew is a Palestinian Baby Killer?

Damn Del... that's lame even for your pathetic ass.

And I can't STAND that low-rent POS... So I am not defending him.. I am defending Jews DESPITE HIS PATHETIC ASS.

 

[del]

shouldn't you be killing babies in the gaza, tough guy?

ROFLMNAO... So ya feel a Jew is a Palestinian Baby Killer?

Damn Del... that's lame even for your pathetic ass.

piss off, queenie. when i want your opinion i'll give it to you.

 

[DavidS]

Our Constituiton is being used at Toilet paper by the mindless left.

Really?

 

[American Horse]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

Please show me what article of our constitution specifically deals with contractual agreements.

Thank you.

The financial benefits flowing from those contracts are the property of the parties to the contracts.

Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons [to property]
No person shall be …… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Deprivation of Property: Retroactive Legislation — Federal regulation of future action, based upon rights previously acquired by the person regulated, is not prohibited by the Constitution. So long as the Constitution authorizes the subsequently enacted legislation [emphasis added]* Which it does not because it violates the prohibition against a “Bill of Attainder”

*FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment: Annotations pg. 13 of 16

 

[LiveUninhibited]

When was the last time we had a President who actually does respect the Constitution? This is not a left-versus-right issue.

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

It's time to grab the sides of the boat and start rocking it....

Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party :: April 15th, 2009

Revolution is brewing.

I don't get it. The Boston Tea Party was about no taxation without representation. That's not what is happening. Obama made his intentions very clear during the campaign and he was elected with a comfortable majority. Are you going to march around and wave signs and expect politicians to care? Are you going to avoid paying taxes? How do you convince people who make less than 250k to join you? The link you provided has a video with Newt being incredibly vague, basically saying, "Taxes bad. Small government good." Uh, great argument Newt, if you're only talking to people who agree with you.

It will have been shredded. Can you say Marxism? Yep! I bet you can.

It has already been shredded. Can you say PNAC, Bush, and Fascism?

PNAC Shredded the US Constitution? ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's Precious. A private gather of people who expressed their political views... is "DESTROYING THE US CONSTITUTION!"

But you're exactly right about fascism destroying the US Constitution... and what ideology is Fascism? Here's a clue:

LEFTIST!

Fascism first came to the US Federal Executive in one Woodrow Wilson, a very enthusiastic member of the "Progressive movement' and our nations FIRST Academic President... Now leftism is an ideology and not a political party... but ya might take a minute and google President Wilson and check out what political party he represented.

Now here's the BAD news... With regard to the potential destructive effect on the US Constitution, Fascism is the LEAST OFFENSIVE facet of leftism... and is vastly preferred over the MARXISM which is presently sitting in the US LEGISLATURE AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

Um no. Fascism can be either rightist or leftist, depending upon the justification used.

 

[Ravi]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

Do you seriously think there will be a public outcry if AIG executives get smacked? I don't.

SO let me get this right.... You are OUTRAGED that California would define marriage as between a man and a woman and claim it violates the Constitution and that the will of the people does not matter. BUT now you claim the will of the people should allow for Unconstitutional actions, that YOU happen to agree with.... Do I have that about right?

That's not what I said. Try reading for comprehension.

 

[Ravi]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

Please show me what article of our constitution specifically deals with contractual agreements.

Thank you.

The financial benefits flowing from those contracts are the property of the parties to the contracts.

Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons [to property]
No person shall be …… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Deprivation of Property: Retroactive Legislation — Federal regulation of future action, based upon rights previously acquired by the person regulated, is not prohibited by the Constitution. So long as the Constitution authorizes the subsequently enacted legislation [emphasis added]* Which it does not because it violates the prohibition against a “Bill of Attainder”

*FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment: Annotations pg. 13 of 16

I think it is a stupid thing to do but I don't know that it is unconstitutional. After all, they are receiving compensation. They get to keep their jobs, they aren't being criminally charged, and they aren't being asked to commit suicide (well, except by Republicans).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you seriously think there will be a public outcry if AIG executives get smacked? I don't.

SO let me get this right.... You are OUTRAGED that California would define marriage as between a man and a woman and claim it violates the Constitution and that the will of the people does not matter. BUT now you claim the will of the people should allow for Unconstitutional actions, that YOU happen to agree with.... Do I have that about right?

That's not what I said. Try reading for comprehension.

It is what you mean though. You are APPALLED that California can make marriage be between a man and a woman and claim it violates the US Constitution. Demanding that the right of the majority is irrelevant. Now you are claiming that the Constitution be damned, the right of the people is more important. And the ONLY difference is that you have a personal opinion difference.

 

[Freemason]

The US Constitution is and has been under attack by liberal judges who want to make the laws rather than enforce them.

 

[editec]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

America owns AIG.

Obviously the people who lost billions don't deserve a bonus.

Fire their asses and stop pretending that forensic accountants don't exist who can back AIG out of the mess they got it in.

Then, if warranted, start the indictments.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

Please show me what article of our constitution specifically deals with contractual agreements.

Thank you.

How about a supreme court report on the same? There is not a specific article in the constitution just as there is not a specific article in the constitution saying abortion is legal.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/68852-marxist-leninist-bullsh-t-3.html#post1027552

But the question here is not whether it (the federal government) has the power to violate its own contracts, but whether it has the right to interfere with and destroy the obligations of contracts existing between private citizens of one of the states, in defiance of the laws of that state, subverting the law of a state and the effect of a contract according to those laws. Is there any authority found for that? No.

Once again our wise benevolent ** government acted too rashly and too quickly and the government in this case acted against the wishes of the majority and slammed the bail out through congress with absolutely no thought on any legal or constitutional ramifications.





** sarcasm

 

[Ravi]

SO let me get this right.... You are OUTRAGED that California would define marriage as between a man and a woman and claim it violates the Constitution and that the will of the people does not matter. BUT now you claim the will of the people should allow for Unconstitutional actions, that YOU happen to agree with.... Do I have that about right?

That's not what I said. Try reading for comprehension.

It is what you mean though. You are APPALLED that California can make marriage be between a man and a woman and claim it violates the US Constitution. Demanding that the right of the majority is irrelevant. Now you are claiming that the Constitution be damned, the right of the people is more important. And the ONLY difference is that you have a personal opinion difference.

I'm not saying that at all, retard. I'm merely commenting that I don't think most people are going to get upset that AIG executives get smacked. Quit being so emotional and try to use your brain instead of your silly feelings to determine what other people mean. Or ask.

 

[DavidS]

The financial benefits flowing from those contracts are the property of the parties to the contracts.

Incorrect. This isn't private money that AIG raised on its own and is spending on its own. If it were, you and I would be on the same page.

This is money that the United States government has loaned to AIG - over $100 billion - to keep AIG alive. If AIG had not received this money, AIG would be dead right now.

The government gets to decide how its money is being spent. And when AIG was going on special luxury junkets for their employees and staying at 5-star hotels, ordinary mom & pop businesses were crumbling. The money was supposed to be used to keep AIG in business, NOT to give million dollar bonuses to employees.

Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons [to property]
No person shall be …… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Nothing is being taken from these people except bonuses. I can't believe you're defending these bastards. The rich are the people that have screwed us!

Deprivation of Property: Retroactive Legislation — Federal regulation of future action, based upon rights previously acquired by the person regulated, is not prohibited by the Constitution. So long as the Constitution authorizes the subsequently enacted legislation [emphasis added]* Which it does not because it violates the prohibition against a “Bill of Attainder”

*FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment: Annotations pg. 13 of 16

My friend, a constitutional lawyer you are not. No property is being taken from these assholes. Million dollar bonuses are ben taken - and that money is the property of the federal government. These executives aren't being deprived of their rights - just million dollar bonuses!

Idiot.

 

[KittenKoder]

The rich didn't screw us, idiotic CEOs and business morons (desk jockies) did it. Seriously, you can't see the difference? They aren't rich, and though they have some extra money now, it won't last long anyway because they can't even run a company well, what makes you think they will be able to budget their own lives.

 

[DavidS]

Once again our wise benevolent ** government acted too rashly and too quickly and the government in this case acted against the wishes of the majority and slammed the bail out through congress with absolutely no thought on any legal or constitutional ramifications. ** sarcasm

Please, by all means hire a lawyer and sue the Federal Government on behalf of AIG to get the million dollar bonuses back from which they were given by the bailout bill aka TARP.

When you're laughed out of court, you might've wanted to do a little research and discover that AIG hasn't been given one dime of TARP money.

Federal Reserve bailout

On the evening of September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank's Board of Governors announced that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had been authorized to create a 24-month credit-liquidity facility from which AIG may draw up to $85 billion. The loan is collateralized by the assets of AIG, including its non-regulated subsidiaries and the stock of "substantially all" its regulated subsidiaries, and has an interest rate of 850 basis points over the three-month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) (i.e., LIBOR plus 8.5%). In exchange for the credit facility, the U.S. government will receive warrants for a 79.9 percent equity stake in AIG, and has the right to suspend the payment of dividends to AIG common and preferred shareholders.[3][6] The credit facility was created under the auspices of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act.[6][21][22] AIG's board of directors announced approval of the loan transaction in a press release the same day. The announcement did not comment on the issuance of a warrant for 79.9% of AIG's equity, but the AIG 8-K filing of September 18, 2008, reporting the transaction to the Securities and Exchange Commission stated that a warrant for 79.9% of AIG shares had been issued to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.[23][7][3] AIG drew down US$ 28 billion of the credit-liquidity facility on September 17, 2008.[24] On September 22, 2008, AIG was officially removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average.[25] An additional $37.8 billion loan was extended in October. As of October 24, AIG has drawn a total of $90.3 billion from the emergency loan, of a total $122.8 billion.[26]


Additional Bailouts of 2008

On October 9, 2008, the company borrowed an additional $37.8 billion via a second secured asset credit facility created by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY).[29] From mid September till early November, AIG's credit-default spreads were steadily rising, implying the company was heading for default.[30]


On November 10, 2008, the U.S. Treasury announced it would purchase $40 billion in newly issued AIG senior preferred stock, under the authority of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act's Troubled Asset Relief Program.[31][32][33] The FRBNY announced that it would modify the September 16th secured credit facility; the Treasury investment would permit a reduction in its size from $85 billion to $60 billion, and that the FRBNY would extend the life of the facility from three to five years, and change the interest rate from 8.5% plus the three-month London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) for the total credit facility, to 3% plus LIBOR for funds drawn down, and 0.75% plus LIBOR for funds not drawn, and that AIG would create two off- balance-sheet Limited Liability Companies (LLC) to hold AIG assets: one will act as an AIG Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Facility and the second to act as an AIG Collateralized Debt Obligations Facility.[33][31] Federal officials said the $40 billion investment would ultimately permit the government to reduce the total exposure to AIG to $112 billion from $152 billion.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aig#cite_note-NYT-Sorkin-2008-11-10-30

 

[DavidS]

Bill of Attainder?

If congress passes a Law (Bill) to, by taxation, confiscate from AIG or its employees that money paid out in bonuses, wouldn’t that amount to a “Bill of Attainder”, and/or Ex Post Facto Legislation? And that’s in addition to nullifying a pre-existing contractual agreement between willing parties. It certainly seems all of these things would be in violation of the Constitution, but it won’t be the first time for that.

All this has no higher purpose than to distract us from what else they (congress) and this Administration are doing, because they are fearful of a huge public outcry on April 15th. That is a day we all know well and no one need more prompting for a better date for a huge public outcry about what’s been going on lately.

.

America owns AIG.

Obviously the people who lost billions don't deserve a bonus.

Fire their asses and stop pretending that forensic accountants don't exist who can back AIG out of the mess they got it in.

Then, if warranted, start the indictments.

You wanna know something even funnier?

AIG Retention Bonuses Went To Ex-Employees

More grist for the mill here. New York AG Andrew Cuomo, in a letter to Barney Frank, bellows over the fact that 11 bonus recipients, who received $1 million or more in retention bonuses, aren't even with the company anymore.

 

[DavidS]

The US Constitution is and has been under attack by liberal judges who want to make the laws rather than enforce them.

Really? Which liberal judges? What laws are they making? What laws are they not enforcing?

The whole point of this is that none of you, none of you right wingers know a goddamned thing about this constitution you pretend to care so much about. If you people really cared about our constitution, you would've been on here year after year yelling at Bush for ripping our constitution in shreds, depriving American citizens of rights, throwing away the fourth amendment like its a piece of garbage... wiretapping, illegal search and seizure... and you idiots justify it in the name of security. It's okay to throw out the constitution, our very rights, our very freedoms in the name of security, but when billions of your tax-payer dollars have been given to a company so it won't buckle and cause an even bigger panic than lehman brothers caused, and they decide to spend that money on high level, multi-millionaires who don't need the money, instead of spending it on ways to sure the company up so it won't need to tap into the federal reserve ever again, you people cry and whine and complain and you defend these sonsofbitches. But if it were a Republican in the White House, you would defend the actions of the President and say "We need to get that money out of the hands of the executives."

That's what's so troubling about you people. I'm an American. I've never voted for the same party twice - I vote for whoever I feel will lead this country better, but if my vote loses, I stand behind the President of the United States of America. Elected by the widest majority in decades, he IS the President. If McCain had won, I would stand behind him. If I disagreed with him, I would air it out - probably here. And I've got nothing against you people disagreeing with Obama - but seriously? Tea parties? A "revolution?" There is no "revolution" brewing becaus you people are constitution defenders and you know that the President has term limits. The best thing you can do is organize non-profit agencies, real ones not like ACORN, and help get more people registered to vote, so when it comes time in 2012 to vote Obama out of office, you can actually do it.

These tea parties are about as relevant as the anti-war protests in 2003 and 2004 by that goddamned traitor Cindy Sheehan.

If this country, G-d forbid, is attacked by terrorists again during Obama's first term, will you stand behind him that day when American blood is pouring on our streets? Will you stand behind your elected leader?