Congresswoman Bachmann Questions Geitner About Constitution

[Truthmatters]

You guys keep bringing sex into the converstations.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You guys keep bringing sex into the converstations.

Nope, you brought it up on the other thread. Nobody asked you to post all that stuff about teabagging. That was ALL YOU!

 

[Truthmatters]

Tea bagging is a known thing.

I though it was really funny that the R leaders concocted this Tea Bag thing not knowing what the youth used that term for.

Funny stuff.

Oh BTW you are wrong the right in this thread talked about MB being hot long before I teased about it.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Not really, Willow. Her hotness is up for debate. Her nuttyness is on record.

She looks like the sister of Kathleen Harris.

If your political values can influence your perception of sexual hotness, you are in big trouble in the libido area.

 

[Truthmatters]

As a side note, does anyone have the Congresswoman's number? She's hot!

4th post

 

[Truthmatters]

As a side note, does anyone have the Congresswoman's number? She's hot!

and all the librals got is pop up pelosi and finicky feinstein librals just hate hot Republican womens...

and again

 

[Tech_Esq]

Tea bagging is a known thing.

I though it was really funny that the R leaders concocted this Tea Bag thing not knowing what the youth used that term for.

Funny stuff.

Oh BTW you are wrong the right in this thread talked about MB being hot long before I teased about it.

On this thread you're right. On the other thread, you are the one that pointed out the sexual aspect of the term. I, of course, knew it, but kept it to myself.

And, I think she looks damned good for being in her mid fifties. (And Ray, if you would turn that down, we're going have to start asking questions about you boy).

 

[Truthmatters]

she is not an ugly woman but then neither is Finestien or Pelosi.

Its just how the right is.

 

[Tech_Esq]

she is not an ugly woman but then neither is Finestien or Pelosi.

Its just how the right is.

FrankenFeinstien? Are you kidding me?

If Pelosi turns that knob in the back of her head one more turn to the left her skull is going to rip right through the skin on her face. Damn, now see what you made me do. I feel bad about that and would have kept it to myself if you didn't prompt it.

You're very bad for me.

 

[Jon]

she is not an ugly woman but then neither is Finestien or Pelosi.

Its just how the right is.

You're fucking nuts. Pelosi is a hideous goddamn beast.

 

[Yurt]

she is not an ugly woman but then neither is Finestien or Pelosi.

Its just how the right is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

she is not an ugly woman but then neither is Finestien or Pelosi.

Its just how the right is.

How ironic, considering the object of this thread is the Constitutional aspects of the administrations' actions.

Take a gander at Article 1, section VIII, clause 18, which could give a Democratic Congress the ability to pass any law Treasury needs. And it's called the Elastic clause!

 

[Tech_Esq]

But see:

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

In other words, while this clause allows Congress to be flexible in the means, the ends must first be within the Constitution. I haven't found anywhere in the Constitution that the government is allowed to take over private institutions and operate them for ANY reason.

 

[Yurt]

But see:

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

In other words, while this clause allows Congress to be flexible in the means, the ends must first be within the Constitution. I haven't found anywhere in the Constitution that the government is allowed to take over private institutions and operate them for ANY reason.

i'm curious as to how Youngstown applies to the current situation.

what also amazes me is that no dem has provided anything from the constitution that authorizes the president to force a CEO to resign and to essentially take control of a company.

 

[twogreen2c]

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Issues and actions
1.1 Predatory lending and affordable housing
1.2 Living wages
1.3 Katrina relief
1.4 Education
1.5 Voter registration
1.6 Gun control
1.7 Home Defender program

In addition to cutting off the padlock on a foreclosed home, here's what else ACORN does. And for the record, what the story below doesn't tell is the Eagles had to cancel a preseason game when the opposing team refused to play on a field that posed a safety concern. The Eagles had to issue refunds to the ticketholders, therefore were looking to settle a claim for loss revenues from the City since they didn't properly maintain the playing field.

Protesters Rally Outside Philadelphia Eagles Owner's Home

By Vernon Clark
Inquirer Staff Writer

Twisting a Philadelphia sports slogan, about 30 protesters stood at the gate of Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie's Wynnewood mansion yesterday and shouted, "Pay, Eagles, pay!"

Under the watch of about a half-dozen Lower Merion Township police officers, members of the activist group ACORN held a half-hour "tailgating" protest, complete with grilled hot dogs, at dusk. The protesters contended that the Eagles still have not shared with the city money from rents on luxury boxes from when the team played at Veterans Stadium.

No one from the house came to the gate during the protest. A telephone call to an Eagles spokesman was not answered.

Pointing out that Mayor Nutter has proposed cutting some city services, ACORN activist Junette Marcano of the Oak Lane section said it was important to look at ways to raise revenue without reducing services. Low- and moderate-income communities, which ACORN works to help, rely heavily on city services, she said.

"These are resources we should look at instead of making cuts," Marcano said. "There are other ways of getting revenue instead of cutting services such as police and firehouses and libraries and rec centers."

Chanting "Show me the money," the protesters, most wearing red baseball caps bearing the ACORN logo, stood outside Lurie's home on Llanfair Way, the former residence of the publisher and philanthropist Walter H. Annenberg. Amid the chants, they noshed on hot dogs from a portable grill.

Ian Phillips, the group's legislative director, said businesses and other entities owe the city millions.

"We could use that money to cut the budget shortfall," Phillips said. "We're going to be calling out other people who owe the city money. We're moving down the list."

 

[Sinatra]

But see:

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

In other words, while this clause allows Congress to be flexible in the means, the ends must first be within the Constitution. I haven't found anywhere in the Constitution that the government is allowed to take over private institutions and operate them for ANY reason.

i'm curious as to how Youngstown applies to the current situation.

what also amazes me is that no dem has provided anything from the constitution that authorizes the president to force a CEO to resign and to essentially take control of a company.

I am not trying to fly off into conspiracy-land, but this situation, when combined with the other moves implimented by this administration and Democrat Congress, has me deeply concerned. I heard one of the many talking head columnists on television describing the last few months as the single greatest concentration of government power in the history of our nation...

While I am not certain we are at that point yet, the mood is certainly one I currently share.

It would appear my own gradual transformation from annoyance, to anger, to outright fear, is one shared by a growing number in this country.

I really hope my fears prove unfounded, but I just don't know.

Something does appear to be amiss...

 

[dilloduck]

But see:



In other words, while this clause allows Congress to be flexible in the means, the ends must first be within the Constitution. I haven't found anywhere in the Constitution that the government is allowed to take over private institutions and operate them for ANY reason.

i'm curious as to how Youngstown applies to the current situation.

what also amazes me is that no dem has provided anything from the constitution that authorizes the president to force a CEO to resign and to essentially take control of a company.

I am not trying to fly off into conspiracy-land, but this situation, when combined with the other moves implimented by this administration and Democrat Congress, has me deeply concerned. I heard one of the many talking head columnists on television describing the last few months as the single greatest concentration of government power in the history of our nation...

While I am not certain we are at that point yet, the mood is certainly one I currently share.

It would appear my own gradual transformation from annoyance, to anger, to outright fear, is one shared by a growing number in this country.

I really hope my fears prove unfounded, but I just don't know.

Something does appear to be amiss...

They are lying about the one world currency question for one thing.

 

[Tech_Esq]

But see:

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

In other words, while this clause allows Congress to be flexible in the means, the ends must first be within the Constitution. I haven't found anywhere in the Constitution that the government is allowed to take over private institutions and operate them for ANY reason.

i'm curious as to how Youngstown applies to the current situation.

what also amazes me is that no dem has provided anything from the constitution that authorizes the president to force a CEO to resign and to essentially take control of a company.

Brief from Oyez.org:

Facts of the Case:

In April of 1952, during the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills. This was done in order to avert the expected effects of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America.
Question:

Did the President have the constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills?
Conclusion:

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue such an order. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes. The Court argued that "the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."

Further, Justice Black, writing for the Court, said:

The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube announced a standard in how far Presidents can use their power. The court considered 3 possible situations.

1) Where Congress had acted in concurrence with the President's action.
2) Where Congress had acted contrary to the President's action.
3) Where Congress had made no action at all.

The court said that where the Congress and the President had acted in concurrence, the President had the greatest latitude to wield the power of his office. As Justice Douglas said in his concurrence:

A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

Where Congress had acted to the contrary, the President's "power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject."

Where Congress takes no action whatever, [the President] "can only rely upon his own independent powers" under the Constitution.

So, analyzing the current takeover of GM in light of Youngstown, I would say if there was language in the "bailout" that this was a possibility, then you have a number one situation. Thus, the burden would lie heavily on the person who says the power is unconstitutional. That is that the "government" may not do the act.

If there was no provision, then the President must look to the Constitution for independent authority. I think the court was pretty clear that this does not exist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But see:

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

In other words, while this clause allows Congress to be flexible in the means, the ends must first be within the Constitution. I haven't found anywhere in the Constitution that the government is allowed to take over private institutions and operate them for ANY reason.

First, you know that the clause is also called the 'Necessary Clause,' or the 'Basket Clause,' but for me the humor was the picture above and the title 'Elastic.' Guess you missed it.

Second, I'm sure that you know that Congress will often 'roll the dice,' and see what it can get away with.

 

[Tech_Esq]

But see:

That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those[p.340]powers, was established by Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments.1644

In other words, while this clause allows Congress to be flexible in the means, the ends must first be within the Constitution. I haven't found anywhere in the Constitution that the government is allowed to take over private institutions and operate them for ANY reason.

First, you know that the clause is also called the 'Necessary Clause,' or the 'Basket Clause,' but for me the humor was the picture above and the title 'Elastic.' Guess you missed it.

Second, I'm sure that you know that Congress will often 'roll the dice,' and see what it can get away with.

First, yeah, most pics are blocked in the network where I am. I did see it later and it was funny.

Second, yep, I agree and I think they are here. If you look at the Youngstown S&T case above, it looks like tough sledding for anyone opposing action by the Congress and the Obama regime.