View Single Post
Old October 7, 2008, 05:10 PM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2007
Posts: 1,462
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me, under what legal theory does the Congress have the authority to "bail out" any private business.

The only answer I get is the same one I got when I questioned about the Chrysler Corp. bail-out: The General Welfare Clause.

That's as much hokem as how the Congress and Courts have stretched the Commerce Clause.
EXACTLY what I want to know. And further, what happened in the House was appalling. An overwhelming majority on the populace was screaming NO and our representatives passed it anyway due to political pressure from Congressional leadership.

The President represents the United states proper, so his position is a somewhat credible position under the 'protection of the country' argument although it is STILL wicked outlandish, the Senate is supposed to be representing the States, with many of the States on the stick with needs for lines of credit to do business it's conceivable that the Governors expressed a will for passage but I haven't heard ANY hint of such advocacy at all. But the House, the House had clear and unambiguous directive from those THEY are by DEFINITION and DUTY obligated to directly represent and ignored us. The House is our ONLY actual representation to the Fed and they IGNORED US!

They know better? This was beyond our ability to grasp? NO. It was NOT.
Regardless of party those that voted in the House contrary to the will of those they represent need to be sent BACK HOME to stay.

I will vote and campaign for the very first, and every subsequent candidate of any party outside of the Nazi or Communist Party that will work to challenge the Constitutionality of this now passed and signed legislation.

Isn't it specifically forbidden for the United States government to finance any specific industry?

What I'm about to say isn't hyperbole, this undermines what America MEANS. A government for the people by the people just demonstrated that it's only true if the government agrees with the people. This turns the land of opportunity on it's head. It foreshadows a precedent of 'we paid, so we decide' where opportunity is concerned. You were TOO prosperous so give us more then you keep so you don't jeopardize de-stabilizing the market. You'll need to get MORE permissions and in the name of not letting this happen again your risk exposure will have to be with the boundaries.

This whole thing stinks and is genuinely anti-American.

I could go on and on about this one but I'll spare the readers and go back to shouting at the young and and my Representatives office....that is when I don't get a busy signal due to someone else taking their turn to do the same...
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Bruxley is offline  
Page generated in 0.03480 seconds with 7 queries