|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 22:21:44 [Permalink]
|
Cuniformist said
(in regards to AIG failure...)
| it's pretty clear that it was the lack of legislation-- or at least regulation that led to this mess. |
No, it was not lack of legislation or lack of regulation that caused the AIG failure. As much as I wanted to see this thread die, this - and the judicial issue just bug the hell out of me. I'm out of coffee so might seem a bit harsh...
AIG failed because of government legislation that created opportunities for bad actors that was novel and regulations were not so much lacking as they were not enforced. Government was warned, but ignored the obvious. Government then encouraged the bad actors, again ignoring the warnings and dissenting voices of reason. Government then had to top their own previous stupidity by encouraging bad loans and forcing (yes forcing) banks to make bad loans.
More specific? OK: The lifting of restrictions on mortgage trading. Subsidized lending. The Fed's artificially low interest rates. The Community Reinvestment Act. Financial "deregulation." Oh and there is more, but really it all starts and ends with the Federal Reserve: elite enablers, market destroyers and thieves of every citizen.
AIG and just about everybody else in banking bought risky and worthless mortgages in packages, repackaged them and tried to sell for a profit. For a time the shell game worked very well. Like putting shit on a biscuit, eat as much of the biscuit as you dare and sell the shit. After a while, more shit than biscuit = AIG. All the banks are holding shit on a biscuit, none even know the real value that is left, well maybe the original lending banks do.
The government enabled, sustained and now are bailing out bad actors at our expense. This was not a failure of free markets or capitalism as some in the media have said. As Dave can tell you, free markets, if they ever did exist are long exitinct. This was government manipulated idiocy from the beginning, and it is idiocy to think we can - or should - avoid the depression that is inevitable. This Paulson/Fed slow death is exactly what FDR and Hoover did, it didn't work then and it sure won't work now. The flushing of funds into current wars and Homeland Security is too large.
The Federal Reserves' action with AIG amounts to a $85 billion purchase of a private company, on behalf of the federal government, using public funds without political accountability of any kind. (A clear illustration of who actually runs our political system and economy).
Congress created the Fed and, therefore, has critically important responsibilities for Federal Reserve oversight. Yet Congress is not allowed monetary oversight of the Fed because the Fed says it "is not necessary". The Congress was not even allowed discussion or consultation regarding the AIG bailout.
We have a problem. It is that the Fed is out of control and the government is addicted to spending. The country is broke and Medicare and Medicaid will be the next bubble to burst. Just looking at the growth, it is a bubble just waiting to burst.
All the current calls for more regulation just means a future of increased collusion, codependence, and manipulation between bad businessmen and worse government officials.
The core issue is that there is nothing to restrain money creation.
***
Dave said
| "Judicial review," however, has a long legal precedent, and it sure looks like the Framers intended for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws. |
The judicial now dismiss the doctrine of exacting construction as outdated, instead they treat the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome. Their vision of "justice" is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/19/2008 : 23:03:51 [Permalink]
|
Xeked said:
The judicial now dismiss the doctrine of exacting construction as outdated, instead they treat the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome. Their vision of "justice" is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. The federal judiciary is more focused on promoting social agendas than on upholding the rule of law.
|
You are going to have to cite examples (more than a few)... and perhaps a study that demonstrates this is a trend or even widespread. I think you are, like many of the "conservatives", taking a few examples of bad judicial decisions and reaching a false conclusion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 23:39:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
The judicial now dismiss the doctrine of exacting construction as outdated, instead they treat the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome. Their vision of "justice" is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. The federal judiciary is more focused on promoting social agendas than on upholding the rule of law. |
Well, hell.
You say that the judiciary is (in part) sworn to interpret the Constitution, yet you deny that interpretation necessarily changes based upon the times. If the law were truly fixed, then no interpretation would be required.
It seems from your point of view, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Please, as Dude suggested, list some specific instances of Federal judges "screwing" the Constitution. Why not start in 1937 and move forward chronologically? Provide a similar number of cases in which the Constitution was not screwed, for comparison purposes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 00:09:39 [Permalink]
|
| How do they decide who is or is not conservative? I have considered myself a fiscal conservative for a long time, but I also consider myself a social liberal, basically I consider my political bent most aligned with the classical liberals of the enlightenment. Would I be labeled a liberal or a conservative in regards to this study? D.J.Grothe on his facebook page, posted a similarly veined study where they tried to show that images of horror caused different reactions in conservatives vs liberals. I say the whole idea is suspect and highly prone to confounding factors. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 01:33:20 [Permalink]
|
| You are going to have to cite examples (more than a few) |
How about I cite a few to see if there is interest in looking at the obvious so we don't waste each others' time. Legislating from the bench is not some new insight. The question is why/how do you, or anyone else find it to be acceptable?
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)
| It seems from your point of view, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. |
Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs.
My point is if we are going to screw the Constitution on all levels, executive, judicial and legislative why not just trash it and write a new one or amend the heck out of the one we have?
It just bugs me that I once took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic and our government takes the same oath, turns around and calls it a living document (at best), just so they can do as they please.
I recently visited Thailand, where they have now thrown out two prime ministers in a row for violating the Constitution of that country. They take such matters seriously, deadly serious. Bastion of freedom and democracy - USA, the Constitution is a "god damn piece of paper". It seems to be a bi-partisan thumbing of noses that has gone on before the ink was dry, so we can't blame everything on the current adminstration. The level at which it occurs now is really disconcerting to me.
I am sure most these people are decent, well educated and moral, I just do not fully appreciate their perspective regarding the Constitution.
Instead of denying the obvious, and claim I have no evidence, maybe give me an example of your take on the Constitution in our modern form of government so I can temper my resolve and expand my limited views. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 07:28:45 [Permalink]
|
Zeked:
The Federal Reserves' action with AIG amounts to a $85 billion purchase of a private company, on behalf of the federal government, using public funds without political accountability of any kind. (A clear illustration of who actually runs our political system and economy). |
I don't know about the wisdom or legality of the bailouts, but isn't it fair to point out that both the S&L and Chrysler bailouts returned a profit to the public fund? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 07:42:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
I recently visited Thailand, where they have now thrown out two prime ministers in a row for violating the Constitution of that country. They take such matters seriously, deadly serious.
|
Wait a second. The first PM, who was democratically elected was ousted in a military coup, the leaders of which threw out the entire constitution that had been drafted by a democratically elected constitution committee, and set about drafting a new one with people hand selected by the coup leaders.
The currently ousted PM served for nearly 8 Months before he was run out on a rail for appearing on a TV cooking show. HIs temporary successor appointed by the hand selected (not elected) parliament will not be the PM, but no one knows who or when they will have one.
These shenanigans have devastated that countries main industry - tourism.
Kind of hard to hold Thai Politics up as a gleaming model of what is right and good in the world. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 09/20/2008 07:44:35 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 07:57:38 [Permalink]
|
I don't get it. I looked at Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). There's a wiki entry for it, and of course the text at FindLaw.
I've started to go through the case, but the legal jargon and writing is not easy to get through. But where's the big example of "judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs"?
Where is the "go beyond" part here? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 08:00:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
Cuniformist said
(in regards to AIG failure...)
| it's pretty clear that it was the lack of legislation-- or at least regulation that led to this mess. |
No, it was not lack of legislation or lack of regulation that caused the AIG failure. As much as I wanted to see this thread die, this - and the judicial issue just bug the hell out of me. I'm out of coffee so might seem a bit harsh...
AIG failed because of government legislation that created opportunities for bad actors that was novel and regulations were not so much lacking as they were not enforced. Government was warned, but ignored the obvious. Government then encouraged the bad actors, again ignoring the warnings and dissenting voices of reason. Government then had to top their own previous stupidity by encouraging bad loans and forcing (yes forcing) banks to make bad loans.
More specific? OK: The lifting of restrictions on mortgage trading. Subsidized lending. The Fed's artificially low interest rates. The Community Reinvestment Act. Financial "deregulation." Oh and there is more, but really it all starts and ends with the Federal Reserve: elite enablers, market destroyers and thieves of every citizen |
I say a big cause was the lack of regulation. You say no it's not. And then, when you try to be specific, you say that it is.  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 09:03:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) |
So, three personal liberty cases and an Establishment-clause case?
In Everson, SCOTUS upheld a law which failed to specifically grant a benefit to religious activities. If the court had ruled the other way, then we could rule unconstitutional all outlays of public money, because some of it might end up benefiting a religion (think part of a civil employee's paycheck going into a collection plate), and government would be paralyzed. I don't see where any new law was created or Constitutional rights/powers modified. Everson lost his case at all three levels of appeal, as he should have.
The other three cases, all regarding individual liberties, could not possibly have been creating new constitutional rights because of the Ninth Amendment. And part of the highest courts' jobs is to balance the power of the legislature, so striking down unconstitutional laws is well within their perogative.
SCOTUS, for example, is the highest appeals court. Findings of fact are handled by the lowest courts. Appeals courts rule on finding of law. Appeals courts do not hear new testimony from witnesses or examine new evidence. Their job is to consider whether the lower courts applied the law correctly, or to consider whether the law itself is appropriate.
So where is the problem? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 10:23:51 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
The question is why/how do you, or anyone else find it to be acceptable?
|
Actually, the question is nothing of the sort. I reject your false characterization of my position. IF judges were, in fact, creating new laws from the bench... I'd very likely be opposed to it. Good thing for us all that they aren't doing any such thing. If we end up with another republican on SCOTUS though, it seems likely that such a situation might actually develop.
The question is, really: Why do you think an extremely small number of bad decisions (I'll grant you the "bad decisions" for the sake of this argument, but know that I already disagree with some of the examples you listed) is somehow the equivilent of widespread judicial abuse and "legislating from the bench"?
Again, I think you need to reconsider your position. If you take issue with some specific court rulings, that is all fine. But to project your dislike of those rulings onto the entire judiciary system... you are commiting a grevious fallacy of logic there.
You can't demonstrate that there is a widespread problem with the judicial branch... because there isn't one. With all the red-faced ranting from the religious right about "activist judges", you'd think they would have a legit survey or study to back up their claims.
What is actually occuring is the morons use the angry phrases "activist judge" and "legislating from the bench" ONLY when a decision they disagree with comes down. All in an attempt to discredit the judge issuing the ruling.
Want some examples of extremely conservative judges who have been subjected to this, from their own people?
The judge in the Terry Schaivo case. He is a republican, very conservative, a member of a conservative church... but he followed the law, ruled in a way that pissed off the retarded right-wingers, and earned himself the label "activist judge".. hell, they even threw him out of his church!
The judge in Kitzmiller v Dover schoolboard. Republican, conservative, appointed by Bush. "legislating from the bench" and "activist judge" were applied to him within minutes of his final decision in that case. Even though he specifically followed the law and all legal precedent.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 10:35:18 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
All the current calls for more regulation just means a future of increased collusion, codependence, and manipulation between bad businessmen and worse government officials.
|
Well, too bad that there is no such thing as a "good actor" out here in reality. Its a fucking pipe-dream to think that business will act fairly without strict oversight and penalties for being devious.
Rules must exist to protect everyone involved, and those rules must be objectively enforced.
Now... we can debate the extent of those rules all day long. But surely you have to agree that what is going on this last week is a result of ignoring not just the rules, but common sense.
Most of the population of our country is incapable of realizing that we have been robbed blind for the last eight years and this is just the fucking crowning final robbery. The money is all about to dissapear in a blizzard of corporate restructuring and buying/selling of assets, and the taxpayer is left holding the bloody shit-biscut that remains. No regulation just killed my retirement.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 18:07:47 [Permalink]
|
Just as a side-note to the AIG bail-out and the various follow-up stuff-- the more I read, the less I like it. Mostly because it seems like lots of details haven't been hashed out and thus left to the brilliant forward thinking selfless individuals who brought us the Iraq War and help with Katrina.
I'm writing my Congressional delegation to make sure that whatever massive bill Congress is asked to pass is looked over carefully so we have no more Patriot Act bullshit. You all should do the same. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 21:13:21 [Permalink]
|
Good points, my perspective is improving. Thanks.
I had missed observance of Constitution day on the 17th. Hope all had a good one.
My main issue with the federal judicial comes when the issues are not federal matters. State rights, (I was not seeing this properly before). The lack of amendment after all these years looks to be reason enough to shut the practice down.
Everson vs Board of Education was an example when a court rules that the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law " suddenly means that "the states shall make no law" and creates a new constitutional "wall of separation" between church and state.
What I have read indicates the states right issue is fairly well trampled by our federal judicial system. The problem is not personal bias on the issues being considered, it is the federal judiciary ignoring constitutional limits of legislating to the states.
When a court "finds" a "right of privacy" hidden in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution and later expands this "right of privacy" into the right to abortion - that is judicial activism, (fine). When it is applied to all states, that is unconstitutional, (not fine). State laws being upended by such legislation is abundant. Medical marijuana is a recent example. (Thank you all for tolerating my attempt to correct my thinking).
***
As far as the AIG failure. It wasn't a lack of regulation, it was much more than that. It was not my intent to be deliberately misleading, I did want a closer inspection of the cause. The activities of the Fed were far more enabling to the mortgage situation than Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act from 2000. The core issue is that there is nothing to restrain money creation. Even a commodities backed dollar would have kept the Fed from enabling this mortgage disaster. As the Trillions start adding up, seems even a dollar backed by beach sand would be better than a fiat dollar.
I agree Cuneiformist, everyone needs to keep contact with Congress that they be very considerate of economic reforms that come from this - (hopefuly they are asked to participate). The whole last two weeks have brought out economic issues beyond anything this country has ever experienced, and it appears to be the tip of the iceberg. The fast tracking of our economy into oblivion without, (so far), Congressional oversight is beyond my comprehension. What legislation comes of this will probably be more FDR than Thomas Jefferson - and an FDR path of history we should not willingly repeat.
The Fed and Treasury are really out of control, and I think it is time to reconsider the whole Federal Reserve system. In my opinion, the quicker we can get a sound currency into the market, the quicker we can start the recovery. Whatever happens, the economy is in for a tough ride ahead.
Just the amount of pension funds holding worthless MSBs makes me cringe. Probably have a pension bail out somwhere down the line.
***
While Thailand is not an ideal government (none are), it has shown it is capable of changing the government system and the sitting rulers when required, forcing government to restrain itself through a constitution. The temporary impact on tourism and industry was minor compared to allowing a despot to rule to term and creating a civil war. Even with all the negative detractors, I was glad to see a public that would actively influence application of a constitution to the rulers.
More than once I thought of "off the table" Pelosi. Then I thought of the hell that would be unleashed on PAD if they pulled those stunts in the US. |
| Edited by - Zeked on 09/20/2008 21:14:12 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2008 : 22:54:20 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
Everson vs Board of Education was an example when a court rules that the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law " suddenly means that "the states shall make no law" and creates a new constitutional "wall of separation" between church and state.
|
Federal law trumps state law, and the constitution must be followed by all the states. It doesn't make sense to have it any other way. Pass a constitutional amendment, but states don't have to abide by it? What would be the point of even having a federal constitution then?
And the "wall of separation" is one of the few things we have adequate insight into the thinking of the framers. There is no question that the intent was to eliminate religion from government.
| As the Trillions start adding up, seems even a dollar backed by beach sand would be better than a fiat dollar. |
Yeah. We are well and truly fucked. No argument from me on that one.
But the blame is not just for the mortgage banks, the federal reserve, and Greenspan. The millions of US citizens who decided to accept a loan they would not be able to repay have to have some share of the responsibility as well. Not the lions share, that is for the lenders and the lack of regulation, but some. People need to have a little personal responsibility.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Conservatives are...
