A Bailout Propsal

Here's a proposal I am suggesting to our Congressional reps:

(Comments, additions, thoughts welcome)



1. Since the American voter no longer has any trust or confidence in the current administration or the current Congress, any bailout bill must have a sunset clause to expire on 2/1/2009.. This will provide a short term fix for our problems while allowing the necessary time for a new administration & a new Congress to be seated & deliberate the long term solution to our current economic problems, & provide a greater measure of confidence in their decisions.
2. The current President & Vice President must agree to resign their offices within 1 week of the formal election of the next President & VP. They will hand over their powers and responsibilities to the President Elect & the Vice President Elect.
3. The Pardon authority of the President is hereby revoked for the balance of his term of office.


I am instructing you of my desire to have you introduce such a bill in the House of Representatives asap & to reject any bailout bill that does not satisfy all three of my proposed amendments.

Well, there's at least 2 unconstitutional items in there. Wouldn't expect that of a Ron Paul supporter.

pvolcko wrote:Well, there's at least 2 unconstitutional items in there. Wouldn't expect that of a Ron Paul supporter.

Since the 1803 decision of Marbury v Madison empowered the U.S. Supreme Court to decide Constitutionality questions, (unless there was a recent decision I'm unaware of to turn that authority over to "pvolcko" of the Anthracite Coal Forum) I suggest we let them decide those questions.
Other than Constitutionality issues, what do you feel about the "common sense" aspect of my proposal? (do you feel comfortable having this Congress & this President make such a monumental decision?)

I think it is entirely lacking in common sense.

#3 is plainly unconstitutional. The pardon power is in Article II Section 2 and can not be taken away by mere legislation. We don't need a supreme court ruling to know that.

I originally thought #2 was against the 25th amendment, but it appears that it would only be in violation of the Presidential Line of Succession Act and as such the congress could pass a law to override it. The constitution explicitly grants congress the authority to create law to appoint a president in the case both President and VP were to resign, die, etc at the same time. However, the issue is moot. Like with term #3, Senate republicans would filibuster a bill with such a provision in it, House republicans would stage a protest on the floor and grind procedure to a halt with unending parliamentary maneuvers. And Bush would never sign it, and rightfully so. Not to mention the Democrats would never propose it because to get it done they'd need to spend their entire time in DC from now to the election and hose their own member's reelection chances. And lastly, even if the President were willing to sign such a thing and abide by it, the VP would be under no obligation to do so. He has no legal authority in the legislative process (except to break a tie in the senate) and could not be held to the President's will and signature on a bill saying the VP would resign. The only way you get rid of Cheney, even with the passage of this law, is to impeach him, which again takes the congress to actually be in session and present in DC, hosing their reelection campaigning. And all of this crap would blow back on democrats like a hurricane, trying to make such a ludicrous term part of the bailout when they've done nothing but bitch, moan, and decry that the Republicans were the ones playing political games with the bill and the process. We're already only a few months away from the next administration and congress can tie Bush down politically adequately enough in that time without resorting to such a hackish partisan condition.

As to the first item, I'm not sure what a sunset date of 2/1/2009 would look like in practice. Also, it would give congress and the next president all of 11 days, and that's if you include inauguration day itself. Even if everyone came in and was ready and able to get going on it, it would be not nearly enough time to consider a long term solution, draft the bill, get it through congress, and get it signed. And if the people peddling the market psychology aspects of this thing are right, that kind of sunset would totally undercut the effect they're trying to achieve here, to the detriment of us all. And finally, it is twice over unnecessary. There is nothing to stop the next congress and administration from reexamining the bailout law and passing a new law making adjustments or completely scrapping it and starting from scratch (minus, of course, whatever actions are taken by the Fed and Treasury in the intervening weeks between passage and the next group getting to work). Secondly, it is very likely this bill will have two or more "traunches" whereby the people get exposed to debt risks in chunks, it will have oversight built into it allowing congress and its appointed reps to adjust as needed and deemed appropriate by their congressional masters, and all indications are that the "buy" rate Paulson and Bernake are looking at will only expose us to at most around 200 billion in debt by the time the next group are in place, regardless of the traunch schedule. 200 billion is a lot, but relatively speaking it is a marginal risk for us to take on and in seeing how it is done we'll all be able to have a clearer idea of what this bailout means in practice, which the congress critters will want anyway in order to make changes if they so desire.

pvolcko wrote:I think it is entirely lacking in common sense.

OK....But at least now we can discuss the "meat" of the proposals without an "Unconstitutional" dismissal that we are both unqualified to render.


First:

pvolcko wrote:The pardon power is in Article II Section 2 and can not be taken away by mere legislation. We don't need a supreme court ruling to know that.

In point of fact, we do. Congress routinely modify s & interprets many sections of our Constitution & it is only when such modification is challenged that the Supreme Court gets involved. The point that you are missing in all this is that this legislation would require a compromise of both sides in order to pass. Of course the President could veto it, but if he wants a bailout bill (which he is desperate to get to save his legacy, in his eyes) he would have to accept some distatsteful (to him) parts to get it. It's called "Negotiation/Compromise" & this President is just unfamiliar with how that works! ..(His normal "My Way Or The Highway" attitude won't work any more & he knows it.)
If he wants his "Rescue Bill" he will have to swallow some bitter medicine to get it.....for a change!

Second:

pvolcko wrote:However, the issue is moot. Like with term #3, Senate republicans would filibuster a bill with such a provision in it, House republicans would stage a protest on the floor and grind procedure to a halt with unending parliamentary maneuvers.

They could indeed do that...... But they wont because if they want a "Bailout Bill" (or as they like to deceive us with a "Rescue Bill") they will also be forced to finally swallow that same bitter medicine.

Third:

pvolcko wrote:As to the first item, I'm not sure what a sunset date of 2/1/2009 would look like in practice. Also, it would give congress and the next president all of 11 days, and that's if you include inauguration day itself.

This is a valid argument & one that could be changed through legislative negotiation. I picked that date merely as a starting point for negotiations & to point out the need for a speedy action to arrive at a final solution.

pvolcko wrote:There is nothing to stop the next congress and administration from reexamining the bailout law and passing a new law making adjustments or completely scrapping it and starting from scratch

I'm not so sure about that Paul. It happens quite often that one Congress is able to tie that hands of succeeding Congresses with their legislation. This is a much more complicated issue than your above statement would seem to divulge.( If it was so easy to do, then why are many laws written with specific "Sunset" clauses in them to guarantee the law will expire as of a certain date? Why not just overrule them, legislatively?)

No text from emails unless the author is a member here and you have permission from them to post it, no exceptions.

Thanks.

http://nepacrossroads.com/ucp.php?mode=terms

Posting of personal correspondence between yourself and another party whether it be from email or from private messages is not allowed unless you have permission from the author and they are a member here. This includes email that has been forwarded to you. This permission must be sent to the Admin or Mod via PM before you post the correspondence.

devil wrote:

pvolcko wrote:There is nothing to stop the next congress and administration from reexamining the bailout law and passing a new law making adjustments or completely scrapping it and starting from scratch

I'm not so sure about that Paul. It happens quite often that one Congress is able to tie that hands of succeeding Congresses with their legislation. This is a much more complicated issue than your above statement would seem to divulge.( If it was so easy to do, then why are many laws written with specific "Sunset" clauses in them to guarantee the law will expire as of a certain date? Why not just overrule them, legislatively?)

Sunset clauses are put in place on many bills in order to force reexamination of their effectiveness and because they are considered temporary measures. Patriot Act had it for instance. As did the tax cuts passed early in Bush's first term. They were not put in place because these laws tied anyone's hands. At any point inside the sunset period the congress and president could have passed a new law modifying or repealing entirely the provisions of both.

The notion of "tying the hands" of a future congress is a misnomer. They can always pass a new law to undo in part or whole a prior law. What often happen is that one congress with a certain vote balance passes a law, then a new congress with a different vote balance doesn't have the juice to make the changes they want. In this case no one's hands have been tied, it is just the changing political winds at play. This happens most often on contentious issues where cloture votes can be blocked with only a couple seats changing hands in the Senate.

There is one area where congress and the hands of the nation can be tied, foreign treaties. Once they are enacted by a 2/3's majority vote, we're pretty much stuck with them. At least not without renegotiating with the other side of the treaty and getting a new treaty through the processes of both nations.

pvolcko wrote:There is one area where congress and the hands of the nation can be tied, foreign treaties. Once they are enacted by a 2/3's majority vote, we're pretty much stuck with them

Funny.....Bush hasn't been deterred from violating the Geneva Conventions , now has he? (but I forget......he is above the laws...& treaties of man.)

Sorry....Off topic. I tried to stop my damned fingers but they just wouldn't stop typing that!

pvolcko wrote:Sunset clauses are put in place on many bills in order to force reexamination of their effectiveness and because they are considered temporary measures. Patriot Act had it for instance.

Good point!

Devil505 wrote:Sorry....Off topic. I tried to stop my damned fingers but they just wouldn't stop typing that!

You could try plaster casts.

coaledsweat wrote:You could try plaster casts.

Already tried that. (last month's plaster bill was over $400.00!!)