The new Republican line against Obama is that everything he’s doing to prop up the economy is unconstitutional. Michelle Bachmann last week:
Sir, in the Constitution? What in the Constitution could you point to to give authority to the Treasury extraordinary actions that they take?
It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.
Sully finds Will’s rantings fascinating. Publius has a good take-down of the article.
A reader in today’s WaPo chat:
Arlington, Va.: Isn’t “President fires CEO” as troubling as “Pope fires missile”?
Free market capitalism, despite it’s obvious flaws, has lifted more people from poverty than anything in history. When the president can hire and fire CEOs from corporations, we’re no longer a free market capitalist society. GM is clearly a disaster, but it’s up to their board and shareholders to make those decisions. Obama is clearly just helping his union buddies, but he’s destroying the foundation of our economy as he does it.
Is there anything the Supreme Court can do about it? Isn’t this clearly beyond his constitutional duties? Or, because they’re saying he “resigned”, is Obama safe (and the rest of us doomed)?
[….]it seems from what I read that Wagoner is officially stepping aside, not being fired by the president.: That is also the official line Russia and Venezuela, etc., use when removing CEOs from businesses they dislike. This is a very scary precedent Mr. Obama is setting. Very scary.
Expect to see a lot of this one over the next few months.
Cain
Is that a Burkean Bell I’m hearing? Oh my!
cain
cleek
"it’s unConstitutional!" is the traditional cry of the out-of-power.
Ash Can
::headdesk::
What part of WE OWN THEIR ASSES do these people not get?
The Raven
And John Roberts, and the Supreme Court’s conservatives, may agree. History: look at what the Hughes Court did to the National Industrial Recovery Act. I think we may be in even more trouble.
Punchy
Obama is clearly overstepping his constitutional boundaries. It’s clear that his next steps –firing Limbaugh and Hannity–are meant to silence his critics and put them in homeless shelters bumming smokes and eating past-dated cocktail weenies.
Of course, since Obama is really a Kenyan, he’s not bound to obey the US Constitution anyway, so there’s that for ya.
JenJen
Well, and you’ve also got Bachmann, aka Everybody’s Favorite Nutbar, going on Sean Hannity’s shitty show to call for an "orderly revolution" against the tyranny of President Obama.
Now, if she’s that interested in the Constitution, we could always point her to Article Three, Section Three, couldn’t we? She’s edging ever closer.
I’d be curious to see if Bachmann could provide some historical examples of "orderly revolutions." This woman is scaring the crap out of me, and the Hannitys and Becks of the world just keep giving her a microphone and egging her on.
joe from Lowell
I trust that the people wailing about the government getting Wagoner to resign will be precisely the same one demanding that the government breach GM’s labor contracts.
You should put together a "Before and After" post about that.
Joshua Norton
Right, ’cause a free market encourages innovation and competition so you can buy the best product at the best price. Which wingnutz are really really in favor of. Except, of course, when they’re not. Much like the Constitution.
Yeah. It sucks that the government has to step in. But right now, they suck less than all the thieves who ran this shit into the ground. Maybe if those fuckers wanted government to stay out of their faces, they shouldn’t have just stolen everything that wasn’t nailed down, huh?
Zifnab
I mean, the old guy was kidnapping and deporting both native citizens and foreign travelers into secret jails to be tortured and killed while conducting a two front land war in Asia under the false pretext of national security all while attempting to disenfranchise voters at home and intimidate governments abroad.
But he never bothered rich people*.
(* Does not include the CEO of Qwest telephones, former governor of Alabama Don Siegel, or anyone connected to George Soros.)
Col. Klink
Sure the President firing a CEO is troubling. But you know what else is troubling? About 5000 CEOs insisting I and every other American taxpayer fork over our cash so they can keep their McMansions and their bonuses.
Bulworth
@Cain:
Burkean bells all-around, indeed.
The truth is the finance-dependent, free market system as we know it has commited suicide. All the conservative ranting tea parties in the world aren’t going to change that.
SpotWeld
It’s wierd how much a reversal of the Bush administration this is.
Huge swaths of American policy were guided and set by advisors to the White House in closed-door sessions.
Result: Crapfest.
Now we got the White House having a direct hand in the economics market (for the fairly good, if debatale justifaction of financial emergency), and they’re doing it completely in the open.
Seriously, how hard would it have been for the White House to simply lie to everyone that they had nothing to do with it, and get GM (under the threat of no more bailout money) to comply totally.
The whole "teleprompter" nuttyness is a reflection of this in miniture.
A quick (and perhaps superficial comparison) is that both Bush and Obama use and used teleprompters extensivly. Obama, when faced with a technical glitch, or his own error will smile and acknowledge the snafu, back up and go over it again to make sure he gets the messag clearly across. Bush (to the best of my memory) would either pause and wait for someone to fix the problem while the reporters or audiece were stuck just staring and waiting, wondering what went wrong (Bush would never admit to a problem), or worse, Bush would just stumble on in a increasingly incorherant ramble as he steadfastly refused to see anything wrong with what he just said since it was really the audiences problem if he wasn’t understood.
*sigh*
Okay, rant over.
Mary
Starting to think that Bachmann was taking her marching orders from a higher authority than her staff…
The Boston Globe just published a story about the PBGC, the government insurer of last resort for private pension plans, taking their $65 billion out of bonds and putting it into the market right before the September 2008 crash. Unbelievable.
Brachiator
Hopefully, this mischief will not amount to anything, but the trend is somewhat troubling: Obama is not a legitimate president, Administration policies will replace all-American free market capitalism with French socialism, everything the Democrats are attempting to do is unconstitutional since only Republicans can be the legitimate rulers of America. And on and on.
Whatever happened to those hard-core libertarians and supposedly brave Republicans who were insisting that if the free market decided that GM should go bankrupt, then the federal government had no business trying to save segments of the US auto industry?
Incertus
Actually, this is a little encouraging. I was expecting, from the headline, to see something along the lines of "Obama isn’t a citizen, so he’s not really President, so everything he’s done is unconstitutional." Have my standards fallen so low that I’m pleased when the stupid only goes chin-deep instead of over the nostrils?
GSD
Wingnut logic.
President Obama asking GM head to step down is an outrageous intrusion of the federal government into the private marketplace.
President Reagan firing the air-traffic controller’s was an important action by a strong executive showing those lowly union workers the heavy hand of the federal government.
-GSD
Dennis-SGMM
Will’s sudden love for the non-delegation doctrine would be more compelling if he’d discovered it when Congress delegated its power to declare war to Bush vis-a-vis both Afghanistan and Iraq. As it stands, Will’s arguments on non-delegation are almost as substantial as his arguments regarding climate change.
sgwhiteinfla
President Obama didn’t fire Wagoner. He just said if Wagoner stayed on GM wouldn’t get anymore money. Funny but I thought conservatives were AGAINST bailouts. Thats what happens when your ideology is as rigid as todays conservatism claims to be. They are against govt interventions in terms of bailouts but also against govt intervention in terms of putting in regulations or removing CEOs so that the need for bailouts is mitigated. It must be confusing to be on both sides of the argument.
Ash
He’s not even American, why would he have to adhere to the constitution in the first place? Come on wingnuts, you have to think these things through!
JenJen
@GSD: Bingo!!
Kashford
Where was Will when Congress passed the "Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"? That piece of legislation took Congress’ power to declare war (a power limited by the Constitution exclusively to Congress) and delegated it to the executive branch.
To his credit, Will finally stepped up to the plate in 2006, when he wrote an article saying that the AUMF did not authorize Bush to conduct illegal surveillance outside of FISA. But even then, he still didn’t denounce the fact that the power to declare war against Iraq in the first place was delegated to Bush.
Another IOKIYAR, I’m afraid.
The Moar You Know
@JenJen: As would I. She gets little MSM play, which is too bad, as she comes off as batshit insane to the 72% of the populace which is sane.
Plus, if she gets her revolution she’ll eventually wind up on the business end of an M1 Abrams. I’d mortgage my house to see that video clip.
Bulworth
@GSD:
It’s OK if you’re Republican and you fire union workers.
MattF
So, where was Will when Chaney was declaring himself a fourth branch of the Federal Government? I only ask.
harlana pepper
@Bulworth:
Hell fucking yes
Donald G
In the days and weeks after 9/11, we were constantly being told that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" as a justification for going beyond constitutional limits on government power.
For the past 25-30 years, conservatives have had no problem with chipping away at First Amendment protections of free speech, at Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and at Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
I would take this sudden alleged concern with the "constitutionality" of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 with several large mountains of salt.
Zifnab
And look at the results. Obama comes across as verbally eloquent, polished, and quick witted. Bush leaves his public staring on in confusion, causing his surrogates to run around propping up the "Bush is a more elegant speaker in private" praise bulletin.
I’ve had more than one of my friends here in Texas comment on how Bush’s speaking prowess dropped off markedly after he became President. As Governor, if you watch him speak impromptu or debate on TV, he at least comes across as used car salesman slick or folksy. But put him on TV for a Presidential Address and the man looked like a dimwitted robot. The teleprompter did horrible things to Bush’s intelligence image.
someguy
Dear Mr. Wagoneer,
We bought the company for 8 or 10 billion. Overpaid for it too, based on what the stock sells for and the outstanding debt it carries, not to mention the insane sunken costs in pension and health care you guys built into the collective bargaining agreement. Since we own it, we can do what the hell we want with it now, that includes… anything we want! I don’t care if that’s firing the executives and the board (or all the employees), dictating that all the radios have to be made in Newport, RI, or turning the company to the production of Edsels. You take the taxpayer money, you play by our rules. I’d suggest you STFU and go find a new line of work before we, the taxpayers, sue you for having destroyed the value of the company and take your private jet.
Hey, I hear AIG is hiring.
Sincerely,
The Taxpayers
passerby
@Mary:
Thanks for the tip. Here’s a link to that Boston Globe article.
But Bodie, the BU professor who advised the agency [Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation], questioned why a government entity that is supposed to be insuring pension funds should be investing in stocks and real estate at all. Bodie once likened the agency’s strategy to a company that insures against hurricane damage and then invests the premiums in beachfront property.
Since he issued that warning, he said, the agency has gone even more aggressively into stocks, which he called "totally crazy."
A fine example of the reckless and irresponsible transfer of wealth from pensioners to the fat cats on Wall St. Here’s hoping that 1) someone finds this criminal, and , 2) someone goes to jail for this. Like I said, here’s hoping.
me
Some of these guys still love Nixon. They don’t think that if "the President does it, it’s legal" anymore?
jake 4 that 1
Yes, George Will is still employed. It’s an OUTRAGE I tell ya.
AhabTRuler
@me: Asked and answered, counselor: IOKIYAR.
Comrade Dread
Look, we passed strict constitutional limits in this country decades ago.
If you want to change that, then you have to accept certain things:
1. The President cannot initiate combat deployment on this own. He needs a declaration of War.
2. The Fourth Amendment exists and would really, really frown on the NSA listening to anyone without a warrant. It would also frown on all manner of police checkpoints. It would be outright pissed at no-knock raids for any reason less than that the target of such a raid were an immediate threat to their community. ("Threat" would not included possession of narcotics.)
3. The Ninth Amendment, taken literally, would force every State government to make a justification regarding every law it passed that restricted individuals in some fashion, forcing them to argue that doing so protected citizens, property, or less convincingly society.
4. The Commerce Clause read with strict limits, would eliminate a good percentage of the government.
The Federal Reserve would be gone and we’d be back on a gold standard. The National Guard would revert back into State Militias, etc.
This would not mean, despite the GOP assertion to the contrary, that Federal business regulations would cease.
You can argue, legitimately, that this would be a good thing, but I don’t suspect this is what Will and the Republicans (short of the Paul faction) are actually doing. And if you actually feel this way, you should protest and have the courage to stand for your convictions even if it meant personal harm.
Rather, I suspect the current Republicans are not ‘born again’ Constitutionalists, but are disingenuously trying to evoke the boogeyman of Socialism in another form to convince Americans that the Federal government should be hands off with regards to Corporate America, but excessively involved in the lives of her citizens.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
Every meme is going to be tried out and tested in the next four years, right up to and including election day 2012.
Get used to it. And get smart about it. The majority of it is inconsequential. A meme or two may stick.
I am still predicting second term. I’ll let you know when I think that outcome is less likely. Until then, this is just sideshow.
George Will? Pfeh.
Comrade Darkness
Note to the water-bearers for the crony capitalists: those you defend are welfare recipients. Period.
Rather than confusing you, the dollar amounts involved should be horrifying you. What happened to insisting the government be good stewards of our money? That’s what this is about.
passerby
@Zifnab:
I recall seeing clips of Bush ad libbing as governor at some press conference and it was hard to believe that Gov W. was the same as Pres W.
Add to that the probability of Bush being a prime example of the Peter Principle at work.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
I’m tired of talking about Burke. Can’t we reference other random historic thinkers in our pompous shorthand? Here are some suggestions I came up with:
Rabelaisian- referring to Francois Rabelais, Rabelaisian means bawdy or perverted; "Rabelaisian alarm bells" could go off if someone makes an off-color remark or joke.
Pyrrhonian- referring to the ancient philosophical Skeptic, Pyrrho of Elis; "Pyrrhonian alarm bells" go off whenever someone arrives at a definitive conclusion other than that of informed ignorance or unawareness. Really, any dogmatic conclusion should set off Pyrrhonist alarm bells.
Anselmian- referring to St. Anselm, the inventor of the ontological argument for the existence of God- arguably, the stupidest argument for anything, ever, in the history of human disagreement. "Anselmian alarm bells" go off whenever Republicans argue that things must exist as they think they do, because they think so.
Leibnizian- referring to Gottfried Leibniz, co-inventor of calculus and ideologue for the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds. "Leibnizian alarm-bells" go off whenever someone argues that things could be better than this or otherwise disputes the perfection of the world.
Burrian- referring to Aaron Burr; "Burrian alarm bells" go off whenever someone makes a positive reference to Alexander Hamilton, or whenever someone talks about dueling/prying the Louisiana Territory away from the United States and making it one’s own personal empire.
Al-Dinian- a reference to Taqi Al-Din, the inventor of the mechanical alarm clock; "Al-Dinian alarm bells" go off whenever alarm bells go off.
AhabTRuler
I absolutely agree. I think that people are underestimating the level of rally-round-the-flag-ism associated with the current crisis. If things aren’t fixed by then people won’t be focused on failed policies, they will be focused on how bad things are.
George Bush (the Lesser) got reelected due in part to two failed wars, one of which he started under false pretenses. No way that Obama doesn’t get two terms to solve the problem.
Besides, how many chances did Roosevelt get?
someguy
The move to provide government backing for GM warranties will definitely help the re-election bid, if GM dealers are anything like my Ford dealer was when my transmission blew.
AhabTRuler
Term already exists: Pangloss. As in Dr. Pangloss, from Voltaire’s Candide. Has been referenced in previous threads at this site. Also subject of semi-entertaining show tune.
ploeg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Z1fi11KmVs4/SdD007AjqjI/AAAAAAAAACI/iVDuT6mkEUM/Bachmann.png
My apologies to Batboy.
NonyNony
@Zifnab:
I don’t think it’s just the teleprompter that did that to him. I think he was grappling with things far beyond his capabilities. As governor of Texas what did he have to deal with? A budget the size of a large corporation – mostly focused on construction, health care and education – a part-time legislature that skewed as conservative as he was (at least), and a handful of major corporations (mostly oil-related) that he had to stick up for. He could pretty easily wrap his head around the state’s problems and speak somewhat intelligently about them. It probably didn’t hurt that he was governor during a period where the country as a whole was doing quite well, thank you very much, and he was able to not have to think much about major budgetary problems.
When he became President he found a job that was orders of magnitude more difficult in all of the dimensions he knew about, and had a number of dimensions he’d never had to think about beyond the "opinions are like assholes" stage (military and foreign policy for the most part). He was way out of his league and he knew it. It’s no wonder that he might rely on the teleprompter as a crutch because he barely understood what he was talking about in any given speech. He may not have been as stupid as his "robot" act made him look, but he really was that ignorant. (And he had a "surround myself with Yes-Men attitude that was guaranteed to keep him ignorant while he was in office too. It’s a wonder he didn’t manage to do even more damage than he did, actually.)
Edit: Or as passerby said more succinctly – Peter Principle.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@AhabTRuler:
Yeah, but Pangloss was just a parody of Leibniz anyway. I’d prefer the original, since it also sounds much more pretentious.
BDeevDad
They wingnuts will probably find something wrong with this as well:
Can’t wait for the racist comments that will surely follow this announcement.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@AhabTRuler:
Roosevelt = pity vote. Wheelchair, leg braces. Hell, with those props, I could get elected.
j/k. Seriously.
But speaking of Roosevelt, have you ever looked at the pix from early term A until term D? My god, the man looks like a corpse by the time he meets with Stalin and Churchill.
I hope to hell Obama gets out in one piece. And stops smoking.
AhabTRuler
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss: True, yet I still think that Cartesian is the worst insult: the idea that every question can be asked and answered through pure reason alone.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Heh. True. But I’m the All Pangloss Channel, I just love the character. He’s the best of all possible straight men.
Now, to more important things. I only know one guy who would make the connection from Leibniz, and he is apparently you.
I love this reference re: Leibniz:
Which, you know, pretty well explains tuberculosis.
Heh. Post more, please.
AhabTRuler
@ThymeZoneThePlumber: Yes I have, and it is absolutely astonishing. But then, he was into his fourth term. Two terms aged Bush and Clinton, and Roosevelt had to deal with both the GD and WWII. I cannot imagine the sheer will it must have required, but then he also managed to get elected at all.
Kinda like Obama getting elected, isn’t it?
Brachiator
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
Molotavian. Cocktails, anyone?
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@AhabTRuler:
You’re setting off my Anselmian alarm bells just by talking about the word "reason."
Let’s apply St. Anselm’s proof of the existence of God to supply-side economics. If I imagine something, it’s inferior if it’s only imaginary, and superior if it’s real; therefore, if I imagine that tax cuts help reduce the deficit, it would work better if it really happened; therefore, tax cuts will help reduce the deficit. QED, moonbats!
The pyre for burning your Democrat Party and ACLU membership cards will be conveniently located next to the Baptismal Font.
AhabTRuler
Make mine a double (Bush & Cheney).
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@Brachiator:
Talk about triggering alarm bells!
Bush on the rocks, please.
El Cid
Not with regard to Venezuela. With regard to Venezuela, if a business breaks the law or the government chooses to nationalize it, Chavez doesn’t play any games. If you break the law, you go to jail, corporate titan or not. If your firm is to be nationalized, they don’t ask permission — they start legal arbitration and negotiation on a settlement to buy the business.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Well, what if tuberculosis killed off 50 potential Hitlers? THEN wouldn’t it be worth it? (We all know that malaria killed archaeo-Stalin in 1353.)
Gotta run now. Will post more later tonight.
Dennis-SGMM
@BDeevDad:
I think that we can count on Malkin for "Pimp My Crib."
AhabTRuler
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss: Hey, I already provided an ontological proof for the negation of god’s existence (known as the Fleischer doctrine), what more do you want?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
You are right. I am a committed believer in the theory of Perverse Design.
AhabTDefenestrator
Plus, when do we get to start throwing bitchez outta windows, anyway? Preferably whilst they are on fire (W00t! Nomex).
Tonal Crow
But doesn’t the unitary executive have unlimited powers, unreviewable by any court and illimitable by Congress, to take whatever actions he deems necessary, in his sole discretion, to prosecute the War on Terror? And isn’t maintaining our economy’s strength central to fighting off the Jihadi Horde?
Bulworth
@Tonal Crow:
The unitary executive theory only applies to Republican presidents.
Dennis-SGMM
@AhabTRuler:
The Christian right’s current low state is explained by the fact that the election of a Black Democrat as president provided ontological proof of the negation of god’s existence for the Republicans.
AhabTDefenestrator
@Tonal Crow: But that’s the beauty of it. Since, Obama, liberals, democrats, and sane people have eschewed the unitary executive, any overreach must be decried for hypocrisy and bad faith, not because there are any limitations on executive power that are not self-imposed.
The theory is still (for them) valid, and will be deployed in another administration, if it is allowed by the President.
AhabTDefenestrator
OT, but I realized that this website’s fear of the word "Shoes" (W00t! moderation) reminds me of this Simpson’s quote:
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@AhabTDefenestrator:
If the president does it, it’s regal.
Mnemosyne
I guarantee you that the same people whining about Obama actually daring to put some limits on the companies that begged for bailout money from the taxpayers are the same ones who were outraged that Bill Gates took his profits from Microsoft to fight malaria in Africa. After all, they were Microsoft customers and it was their money that Gates was using and he had no right to do that!
TenguPhule
Could we reach 61 Democratic votes in the Senate when Bachmann is executed for high treason?
Adrienne
Bachmann is not a Senator, she’s in the House. That doesn’t make her any less crazy though, just a little less powerful.
Richard Stanczak
Yes much more than the normal routine, "President fires missile."
It is reassuring to see a Republican constitutional movement that is led by Rep. Bachmann. Hilarity to follow.
Mark S.
Will:
Actually, since 1935, no laws have been invalidated by the nondelegation doctrine. The Court has invalidated a total of two laws under this doctrine, both of them in 1935, right before the switch in time that saved nine. It’s for all practical purposes DOA.
But I agree with Incertus way up at #15, this isn’t as stupid as their usual arguments.
gbear
Don’t worry about it too much. 2/3 of the people in her district are afraid to go into downtown Minneapolis. But then again, 1/3 of her district would think it’s a cool revolutionary idea to snipe at cars on I-94.
Rainy
Heck no! If Obama could dismantle Congress, I’d be 100% behind him. But since he can’t do that, it would be nice if everyone in Congress had term limits. These people are worthless corporatist hacks who hardly do anything for the American people unless they are forced to do it.
AhabTDefenestrator
Fixeteth!
The Populist
And when some fucker blows something up in the name of "revolution" these fuckers will be toxic traitors.
They will be finished. The public will see their crimes and know who the real enemy is.
Corner Stone
But would it be orderly? That’s clearly the signifier of an acceptable act.
Brett
y’all missed the Rivkin – Casey EFCA is an unconstitutional intrusion into the First Amendment right to keep ideas about union drives non-public joint in WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123837553079768121.html There’s just something weird about this argument. For one, it turns the NAACP v. Alabama precedent (ruling against a southern state in a fight to publicize NAACP membership lists) against progressives, which is surely good sport for the Rivkins of the world. In addition, it both constitutionalizes the current regime – by investing secret ballot procedures with constitutional import – and implicitly declares the certification procedure to be unconstitutional – i.e., the step you need to take to get to a secret ballot – because to get an election you need "signatures" of a percentage of employees. Fun stuff.
RememberNovember
Umm, there’s a lot NOT mentioned in the USC. Kind of the point so that it could evolve. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say you can’t elect batshit crazy soccer moms either.
Brooke
No Surprise that GM had to sink like the Titanic.. Just the pain and hard work of 300 Million Taxpayers going down the drain.. Whose responsible for that?