The recent actions of the Obama administration to appoint Mr. Cordray over the objections of Congress highlight the meaning of the Rule of Law, and the question of honor.
The Rule of Law is often summarized in the phrase "A government of laws, and not of men", meaning that the law is controlling, not the desires of those who hold the offices.
Honor is about keeping your word. Honorable people can agree on rules, and honor their agreements even when those rules yield disadvantage or failure. Our constitution is such an agreement between citizens. It is an agreement on how laws will be written and changed, and how government power will be kept in check. Every elected official takes an oath to uphold the constitution.
President Obama recently decided to make a "recess appointment" of Mr. Cordray to the new CFPB, when the senate is arguably not in recess. My problem is not with the state of the senate, but with the justification pushed by the President. Obama is not arguing that the senate is in recess and that the law and the constitution are on his side. He is saying that he "can't wait". He is saying that the Congress is an obstacle, and that he needs the power to do "what's necessary".
Men of honor do not cast aside the rules when they are not to their advantage. They understand that the consent of the governed depends on the governed honoring "the rules" (constitution), and without rules, we are starting down a very dangerous road.
This is an election year, and closer to home, we have many more examples of this sort of lawless behavior, including:
- Governor Dayton attempting to unionize daycare providers without explicit legal authority
- Judge Gearin deciding during "the shutdown" (June 2011) that she could ignore the Minnesota constitution and appropriate funds
We, the voters, need to decide what kind of government we want. Do we want a limited government, ruled by the written constitution, where our government cannot do everything we may want, but it also cannot abuse its authority?
Or, do we want a government that is unconstrained by the plain meaning of the constitution, and can do whatever those in office consider the "right thing"? This latter government sounds appealing when someone of my persuasion is in office, and very scary when someone from "the other side" is in office.
President Obama has chosen his issue well. This "recess appointment" is popular enough that voter anger will be muted. Unfortunately, if the appointent stands, the approval of the senate for future appointments will become a formality without force. The President will be able to appoint whoever he wants, regardless of objections in Congress. For those of you on the left, think about this power in the hands of George W Bush, or Richard Nixon.
Checks and Balances are a Big Deal. We cast them aside at our peril.
This is an election year, and an important one. This issue is not explicitly on the ballot, but should be raised anywhere and everywhere with candidates. Will we have a government "of laws, and not of men", or will we have a government of unlimited and poorly defined powers?
Make your choices very carefully this year.
As for why Obama did what he did, he clearly said that everyday we wait that American's were being left unprotected. Republicans have done nothing but protect the top 1% and their own pocket books. There has been nothing but a corporate of our democracy. Take a look at this:http://www.documentarywire.com/the-billionaires-tea-party We all need to get active and elect those who will present us and not the outside and special interests. It seems that, for the most part, Republican legislators have become radical and are the puppets of the corporations. I don't believe that this was the case in the past. I encourage people to re-elect Obama and also to get representation who will help him to get something done. In Eagan, we need to re-elect former Senator Jim Carlson, and Sandy Masin. We need to get the current all Republican legislators out. Join us at the Eagan DFL caucus at Eagan High School on Feb 7th @ 6 pm. Don't worry Don, I can tell we won't be seeing you there!
Remember that "Obama" has nothing to give that has not been taken in taxes from someone else. Obamacare has forced insurance companies to stop offering policies with limited care and lower premiums. We can disagree over whether this is good or bad, but it is not "Obama caring for us". I am always disappointed at people who rail about "the corporations", because WE are the corporations. We have jobs with corporations. We invest in stocks of corporations for our retirement. We depend on corporations to deliver transportation, and food, and housing, and electronics, etc etc. There was a time when we saw a career in business, rising in the corporate world to a place of responsibility and productivity was honorable and esteemed. I still do. Wealth does not simply exist to be distributed by those who claim to be victims of "greed". It is built by the sweat, good judgement and effort of those who build it, and the moment that they can't keep what they earn, they will stop struggling to create it, and in that moment we ALL lose.
In a free economy, no one gets rich without adding great value to people who freely pay for whatever value is added. People like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs get very wealthy, but give to us innovations that enrich our lives. I suggest that we got more out of the deal than they do. If we condemn the wealthy, and their success, we will soon have a lot less of it. As I said above, if that happens, we ALL lose.
"But not everybody is paying their fair share of taxes, as the facts show. And ironically those who are most capable of paying their fair share are not doing so. For Repubs to posit that the price we have to pay to keep businesses in Minnesota is an unfair tax system, and allowing the very wealthiest people in the state — people who are making a million dollars a year, to pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than middle income people. I don’t think it’s right.” Dayton Signing off. Ellen "the Nurse"
It is clear that you are unhappy with the tax system we have, but it is not clear to me what you would want in its place. The sort of redistribution you suggest was tried in the 20th century, and destroyed the economies where it was tried - Cuba, Soviet Union, Cambodia, Argentina, and many others followed the "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Our ideals - the foundational ideas of the US - are based on individual liberty, private property, and the idea that government should NOT be in the business of deciding who gets what. Thank you for reading, and thank you for posting.
Many of your assertions are misleading or non-factual. Regards good-guy US business leaders: Henry Ford was a "welfare capitalist," humane and pragmatic. Regards Founders: US Constitution calls for government By, For & With its People. Founders would interpret today's "free-market" checks and balances failure. Ie: Constitutional misnamed "Citizens United" permits global corporations to anonymously fund political campaigns. Wallstreet is by far biggest campaign funder. Approx 25% of Wallstreet owned by foreign companies. Projected: 51% by 2020. "No taxation, No representation" apologists would roundly reject. Regards global economies: From 1930-70s Argentina's economy grew nearly fivefold. Militarized government and monetarist practices crashed it. US monetarist "pro-banks" practice is seen as big factor in 1900s recession devolving to Rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer Great Depression. GDP of former Soviet Union doubled from 1913-50 and doubled again 1950-73. Only time during same period US GDP grew as fast was 1973-2003. I know Cuban-American who fought against Castro's regime, in exile for anti-Castro efforts. This expert on global business budgets is heartbroken. He believes US now as bad as Cuba, due to corporate corruption. Regards wealthy local corporate leaders ala Ford (and Warren Buffet): http://dynamicshift.org/archives/burnsville-bi-partisans-governor-dayton-is-right Andrea Morisette Grazzini DynamicShift
We can dispute which economies grew or shrank over the span of the 20th century, but it is crystal clear that (almost) every socialist country on earth had abandoned not only the economic policies, but the ideology of socialism by 1995. The reason? It does not work. It breeds waste, starvation, and misery. The escape from poverty was only to be found in respecting private property and some sense of a free economy. The few nations clinging to the socialist vision - North Korea and Cuba - remain in misery. Cuba, interestingly, has recently been toying with allowing china-like reforms too. Only North Korea - starving and poor - clings to the socialist model. Thank you for your commentary.
I'm not debating you. Since you aren't "disputing" the data I provided, just ducking it. Tactic of game-playing, not debate. I reserve debating for sincere, well-sourced and equally serious debaters. I'm not interested in engaging erroneous and polarizing semantics. As a tech entrepreneur who co-founded a satellite tracking and comms company in 1993 I'm aware of the value of "marketplace of ideas" as well as "value add" and ROI of econ-enabling gov't. Our company benefitted from Clinton Admin's release of the DOD asset GPS which is, as it was then, a government asset provided free for any US citizen or business with non-nefarious intent to use and profit from and the then nascent and stubbornly "unfettered" free, free speech internet. Ironically, commerce and certain Congresspeople (some from in our local community) have been employing quite brutal tactics in efforts to "fetter" internet and other media communications. Of course, these are free-speech suppressive tactics countries China, Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union prefer to keep citizens in line. Please identify the law that prosecutes "pamphleteers" publishing under false names. As it happens, I am not a fan of anonymous and/or by-proxy propaganda. No need to further respond to my comment. Only my Q regards the source-citation for the false name practice you refer to as illegal. Thanks in advance for providing your source, Andrea Morisette Grazzini
In case you are confused by difference between the Patch user-name that was appearing for me and my signature. When I registered my account with The Patch, I was still using my ex-husband's surname, Walstrom. I hadn't thought to change after our divorce seven years ago. I've since dropped his surname and adapted my mother's maiden name (Morisette). My maiden name is Grazzini. As it happens, my ex-husband just married a woman (from Boston), named Andrea. If she uses his surname, this could cause confusion. Though I had no idea until last week of his new wife or the coincidence that her first name is the same as mine. It is a good reminder for me to update my name on forums like this, as I now have. Andrea Morisette Grazzini (FKA Andrea Grazzini Walstrom).
The laws that make anonymous pamphleteers illegal are numerous and their effects can be seen on every political flyer. The ubiquitous "this was paid for by..." notice on every poster is my source. I would expect a vocal opponent of the "Citizens United" supreme court decision to be more familiar with these laws, support them, and support the prohibition of anonymous political speech. Also, see: http://www.fec.gov/em/em.shtml http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/
The January 2011 Supreme Court decision on "Citizen's United" gave multinational corporations the equal liberty to fund political campaigns as US citizens. Many such companies pay scant if any US taxes. A quick look at data on Congressman John Kline's funders indicates Aegon is one. -- Less than half of Aegon is owned by US companies. -- Only one Board of Governance Member is American citizen. -- Only one Supervisory Board member is US citizen. -- Only one US Citizen on Compensation Committee. -- No US Citizens on Executive Board. -- No US Citizens on it Risk Committee. -- Compliance Committee members are not named. From Aegon's Strategic plan: "In June 2010, AEGON announced that it would sharpen its focus on its core businesses – life insurance, pensions and asset management - and achieve a greater geographical balance by reallocating capital to the growth markets of Spain, Central & Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America, which offer higher growth and returns over the long term." (...) "AEGON made significant progress with each of these priorities during 2010." Of course, you won't see this in campaign ads. But it doesn't paint a very patriotic picture of Aegon as an individual US Citizen, or, more to the point of your economic arguments: an entity interested in uniting to infuse US economy with jobs or money. Its support of US Congressmen is to earn revenues from US, without burden of paying US taxes. Andrea Morisette Grazzini
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/citizens-opinion.pdf I encourage all who want to criticize it to read it. "The opinion" comes in three parts. 1. The majority said that the 1st amendment right to unfettered political speech cannot be withdrawn from a corporation without withdrawing it from the members and stockholders of the corporation. To give Congress the power to make fine distinctions about who may or may not have his 1st amendment rights limited is to gut the first amendment. Therefore Congress "shall make no law"..... The decision upheld the parts of McCain Feingold that prohibits foreign contributions to political campaigns. 2. The dissent: which is all about the history of corporations and how they are not people, and they therefore have no 1st amendment rights. 3. The concurring, but separate opinion (Thomas) that said that the majority did not go far enough and should have struck down all of McCain-Feingold.
"I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." From Texan Bill Moyers
Natural Law, or "The Law" in Bastiat's unassailable reasoning, which applies to individuals flows from those individuals. Speech is not, per se the Supreme Court, a right "of the corporation," rather the individuals that make up the corporation do not lose their right, their individual right, of free speech. Even when using corporate funds to exercise that right. Taking free speech from individuals when they speak using money from a corporate budget, decided by the people in management and the board, is no more legal than taking it away from individuals when they speak using money from private donors. That is the Law. Our Law. With reference to it's origins. And btw, the choice of the word hubris refers mostly to your boasting regarding your business, as if that makes you any more qualified to "run things" than -- not "anybody else" -- EVERYBODY else. That's the fatal conceit of Statists, Progressives, Interventionalists or whatever you want to call the ilk: That they are smarter than the entire crowd. Which nobody is.
And no, they cannot vote ... only natural persons can. "Take away Corporate Personhood" is a sophist meme. Destructive and dumb indeed. They are considered legal persons for purposes of contracts: Entire organizations can be held accountable for their actions, their guarantees, their warranties. You want to throw that away? Even though it wouldn't reverse Citizens United? Because it fits on a bumper sticker...? Or next to your OWS tattoo?
http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-texas/noscat-9/
I'm sorry but either you don't understand taxation or you are a liar. Unless you make more INCOME than a doctor, he or she will pay more INCOME TAX than you will. You know, INCOME from working at the hospital, this year. As far as their INVESTMENTS are concerned, well, that's money that's (hopefully) growing from PRIOR YEARS' INCOME -- which has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. So your "fair share" is you want a bigger "double dip" -- a bigger second bite at their income: You taxed their work, now you want to tax the benefits they receive from their savings. Like it's rightfully yours or something. The doctor is NOT taxed at a lower rate than you are ON HIS LABOR. Saying they are is a lie. Cut it out.
What it doesn't allow is appointments while in session. The House has not adjourned, and so straight from the Constitution, the Senate cannot adjourn either. They are in session. The courts are going to make short work of this one. The Cordray one even faster, because the Dodd-Frank bill SPECIFICALLY empowers that position (Director) "upon confirmation by the Senate" ... IT'S NOT A POSITION ELIGIBLE FOR RECESS APPOINTMENT. This lawless crap goes on and yet 42% still "approve" of President Claus. Now that's Christmas Spirit...!? (Huh!???)
Look up "subsidiarity" (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity) and think for once. YOU'RE BEING RIPPED OFF ALL RIGHT. And the bigger the budget, the bigger the theft.
I would like to ask people to please be specific when referring to past posts. It's hard to tell sometimes which past post is being "praised". ;->
What is your policy on anonymous commenters?
Our rules have changed somewhat since the launch of Patch, when we discouraged anonymous commenting on our sites. At the moment, we allow anonymous posting on Patch, although we are in the process of reviewing our policies regarding it. I still regularly review all comments posted to Eagan Patch to make sure they abide by our other online commenting standards (i.e. no abusive or obscene language, no defamation, etc.). You can also review our full policies here: http://eagan.patch.com/terms. If you feel that any poster on this site has violated one of our rules, please send me an email at david.henke@patch.com.
Thank you for your prompt response regards Patch's acceptance of anonymous commenters. As you offered, I read your full policies and sent you an email. Look forward to your response. Andrea
Anonymous political commenters named for dead political essayists are inaccurate and misleading. Patch policy says it disclaims "inaccurate and misleading" content. My view is "JSMiII's" personalized comments such as: "you are a liar," "your OWS tattoo," and other comments are abusive. It is one thing to disagree, quite another to vilify and defame. Which Patch policy also says it rejects. I'm glad to hear Patch it is reconsidering it's policy regards allowing anonymous commenters. I hope it chooses to disallow them, in favor of journalistic integrity. Andrea