U.S. v Barack Obama
Apr 1st, 2009 | 66 responses
Four score minus four years ago, a Democratic President of the United States tried to change the relationship between the government and its’ citizens. The press called Franklin Roosevelt’s plan to get Americans working during The Great Depression “The New Deal”, the Supreme Court decided these policies promoted by the President and passed by a Democratic Congress were unconstitutional.
In our current period of economic uncertainty, a Democratic President and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress have pursued a different strategy of declaring private contracts null and void. The outrage over the bonuses paid by A.I.G. is understandable but has opened the door for the restructuring of contractual agreements by the government.
Here is the ultimate issue: If government can change private contracts, what about the contract the people have with their government? John Locke, during the English Civil War, laid out a contractual form of government that informs us that government is created by the will of the people to protect their “life, liberty and estate.” With their actions toward A.I.G., and their soon to be necessary action with General Motors, the Obama Administration will have to void the current contract between GM and the United Auto Workers. This action will allow government to impede on the “life, liberty and estate” (property and wages) of thousands of workers in the automotive industry.
More importantly, what does this shift in power mean to the delivery of services that are provided to the people by their government? The next logical step for the Obama Administration would be to change the funding formulas for both Social Security (going broke) and under-performing public schools. If the government changes these agreements, will the people have any recourse?
Over the past 5 years, civil liberties advocates were correctly concerned by the abuses of governmental power regarding the detainment at Guantanamo Bay. The Bush Administration detained several hundred foreign nationals and there was an uproar by dozens of interest groups. The Obama Administration is being empowered to change the very nature of contractual agreements between corporations and their employees that will have an impact on millions of people… and no one is raising any significant objections to this policy.
At the end of the day, the Constitution of the United States is a contract between “We, the People” and the government that we formed to protect our natural rights. Seventy six years ago, the Supreme Court stood up to a popular new President and forced him to come up with policy that would remain constitutional and get people back to work… perhaps the current incarnation of the Supreme Court will begin to demonstrate some backbone and take action that will ensure the sanctity of contracts made in good faith.
66 Responses to “U.S. v Barack Obama”
If Obama signs that piece of legislation, I'll be beside you on the barricades. Remember, Obama said that the bonus tax bill appeared unconstitutional, and the move died in the Senate. The majority of the bonuses were returned however. The bad bill was snuffed out by his words and bonuses returned. No law was made or broken, but persuasion was applied. The Obama principle in a nutshell.
I go back to my original proposition, Obama wants to bring change to Washington, both sides of the aisle require it. I've said repeatedly, I may be naive about Obama; however, he's not done much to date to make me disbelieve his stated purpose. The closest he's come so far is the wire tap laws Bush created and Obama has not disavowed. I watch that front very closely.
AR – A great inter-change! I hoped you benefited as much as I did. A good debate is not about winning, it's about learning. Thanks man
ps
Don't forget your helmet.
AR
oops
that was meant to say “he's NOT done much to disbelieve…”
HemmD and CS -
OK, that is what I get for not doing more research last night.
First, the bill has been passed by both Houses, and now awaits Obama's signature.
However, I went to http://www.govtrack.us, and read (skimmed) the final bill as passed. Sec. 1304 (Section 125) (the nasty one in question) was indeed repealed in its entirety.
Always best to go to a primary source for accurate information.
CS and AR
I admit, we kind of got into the tall grass on this one.
Let's narrow this down to a simple question. Obama is persuading, not ordering. There is no law against persuasion.
Just to throw a wrench into the bill you mentioned. Don't Armed forces personnel agree to similar stipulations? You can't advocate for a particular candidate while dressed in your uniform, can you? Just thought I'd add to touch of chaos….
CS
If you want to argue if the complete collapse of our economic system is not existential, I'd defer. Not because you're right, mind you
; just because it's a value judgment.
I would say that since the US went off the gold standard, America's well being hangs upon the economic confidence that the rest of the World holds in us. If the confidence goes, so goes trade and credit. Two pretty big criteria for judging our survivability.
HemmD -
If you want to take the 'volunteerism' bill and turn it into quasi-military service, quite frankly you are getting into Hitler Youth and Brownshirts territory. (Damn, I HATE being the one to invoke Godwin's Law).
Persuading? Ok, so, you go to your local bank for a loan to handle a credit crunch. The bank says, sorry, you are too high a risk.
So now you go to your local loan shark, who gladly loans you money in, say, November of last year. It is now March of this year. You need yet more money. You draw up a plan to show him how you plan to replay him, and why you need additional money to get there.
He says, 'I will draw up a new plan for you, and decide how you will earn and spend your money, what you will do for a job, and I think it is is your best interests that you do what I 'suggest'.
Persuasion?
Anyway, time to stop this thread, as we have both (I think) thown our best out there. Let's go find a new one to commandeer! The TMV Thread Pirates.
I know that's the fear you have, but my german heritage thinks that makes a lot of sense.
Seriously, I think the non-participation thing is to stop that very criticism. It would be decidedly at bad thing if all Obama's youth started to march in support of a plan. That, I believe was the point of the bill introduced. It was an attempt to remove volunteerism from political and religious meddling.
Hitler youth had a political affiliation (Nazism) and a religion (Hitler). Obama's volunteerism is closer to the peace corps, only inside America. That's change I can believe in.
I, too, come from German heritage.
This is just one of those that has the feel of 'the road to hell, good intentions, etc.'
Couple that with my general cynicism towards all politicians, and a firm belief that all government programs grow and expand their power, and in doing so become more corrupt, well…
You haven't been around this board enough to know, but I have mentioned before I am Jeffersonian in my opinion on how to keep government in check.
We're really going to have to work on that cynicism, it's bad for the soul.
I overcame mine so don't give up hope. Remember, you have to be an optimist or this crappy world will get you down.
I actually am an optimist, very much so. I just distrust government. Those are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, I distrust authority in general. I am 48, and still don't trust the man. He is trying to put us down!.
Funny, I found the less I trusted myself, the more I trusted others- including the man. I'm 58, and may just be experiencing my second childhood.
Good example, I just about had a heart attack just now when I typed out my age. I know I was just 20 something not too long ago. What the heck happened? What cruel game is this?
AR, I was away from my 'puter yesterday so a belated response on the “GIVE” Act.
I honestly don't know what to make of it at this point, but it certainly bears keeping a watchful eye on.
The name itself is so Orwellian as to raise eyebrows. And yet, people in both parties have proposed various forms of this throughout the years, and it can be benign. I do think some of the provisions have that feeling of getting the pavers out for that road to hell…but I also think it's too soon to judge that there's any intentional foray into Brownshirt or Hitler Youth territory.
A side note- isn't it funny how our points are climbing now that people can't ding them when they get ticked off because they're losing an argument?
58? Thanks, now I feel better. You're old!
HA HA HA HA!
Everything is relative, isn't it? 48 or 58, back when we WERE in our early 20's, there was no difference to us. Anything more than, say, 32 was old. No need to cut it finer.
Oh well, I am older, but refuse to grow up.
CS -
“A side note- isn't it funny how our points are climbing now that people can't ding them when they get ticked off because they're losing an argument?”
Yeah, funny about that. Or knocked down just for having a 'wrong' opinion.
My only problem with 58 is every morning when I look in the mirror, I can see the eyes of that 20 year old looking back and saying “What the hell have you done to me?”
When I was in my early 50s, I always said that the only thing I wanted for my birthday was dyslexia so that I could be 25 or 35 again.
Hemm…about that pressure thing….
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/03/obama-thr…
You don't see anything wrong with the president cheering on the angry mobs one day (and then trying to tone it down the next when it was getting out of hand) and then telling these bankers that he's the only one standing between them and the pitchforks? How is that not an abuse of his power?