April 12, 2008

Barack Obama - "Liberal Fascist" on Parade

Hatched by Dafydd

Here's Sen. O:

Obama, in remarks he planned to make to reporters Friday morning, wants Congress to pass legislation he has sponsored that would require corporations to have a nonbinding vote by shareholders on executive compensation packages.

Under Obama's legislation, shareholders could not veto a compensation package offered to an executive and would not place limits on pay. Rather, they would have a means to publicly express their position.

A similar bill passed the House last year.

Oh. Well... I turn to my well-thumbed pocket-sized edition of the United States Constitution (I filched it from Sen. Robert Byrd's jacket while he was gibbering on about his little dog Billy). There's this section in there, see, that lists what powers Congress has... the only powers. You'll find it in Article 1, Section 8; but to save you the trouble of looking it up, I'll quote it here. It's pretty long, but you can just skim, if you're in a hurry:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

And that's pretty much all the powers that Congress has. You may notice that nowhere in there does it say that Congress has any authority to order corporations to hold a vote among all their shareholders -- non-binding or not -- on the compensation packages they offer the CEO or any other corporate officer or employee. If the Senate follows suit on what the House already did, then both chambers will be in egregious breach of the Constitution.

Of course, that possibility holds no terror for members of Congress: They've been passing laws that bore no relation to any enumerated power for many decades now, and usually they're upheld by liberal judges. But that's not the issue here.

Rather, this proposal of Barack Obama's is a wonderfully illustrative window into his totalitarian heart. Like all good "liberal fascists," Obama is not concerned with ancient words written on dead trees. So what if Congress has no authority to do what is necessary... it's necessary! Enough talk; Obama wants action, action, action!

John McCain at least understands constitutionality: He promises only to use the presidency as a "bully pulpit" to try to shame corporate boards of directors into reining in some of the more outrageous salaries, bonuses, and stock options; and fulminating from the presidential pulpit is certainly within the scope of powers of the president. (Now, if he were to issue an executive order forcing corporations to comply, that would be just as unconstitutional as Barack Obama's law.)

Nor do I think the Securities and Exchange Commission has any such authority, nor the Federal Trade Commission, nor OSHA, nor any other regulatory regime. I'm pretty sure executive pay is solely at the discretion of the corporation itself, through its officers and its directors. If they choose to put the CEO's compensation up for a non-binding referendum among the shareholders, that's their own business (literally).

Neither Congress, nor the president, nor the Court has the right to issue such an order, in my non-lawyerly opinion. There is still such a thing as freedom and Capitalism in this country; and we have a Constitution that restrains government from just steamrolling over private parties or publicly held corporations.

But to Obama, the Constitution is just an obstacle that must be got around or simply ignored. What's more important, all those "procedures" that limit what government can do to help people's lives? Or enacting what the masses really want -- making CEOs work for no more than the company would pay a journeyman machinist? Action, action!

"President Obama" will try to force his laws through; and if blocked, he'll issue a whirlwind of royal proclamations (executive orders)... all to "solve problems" using the "third way"... not Communism nor democracy and Capitalism, but just the efficiency of a maximum leader who has his finger on the pulse of America, giving the people what they want without the foot-dragging of democracy or the destructive competition of Capitalism.

Just letting you know what we're in for, if -- out of mistaken support for Mr. Audacity or equally foolish McCain Derangement Syndrome -- we allow Senator B.O. to be elected president.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, April 12, 2008, at the time of 6:24 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2956


The following hissed in response by: DaveR

Obama just lost any slim chance he had to win the election, assuming he is nominated, and he's shaving the odds on that too.

Obama must think America is full of people like the fools and professional victims he sits next to in church. He must think he can make stunningly elitist speeches in San Francisco and then fly on over and hustle the rubes in Pennsylvania about how he is just one of the boys.

Obama is going to crater, and I just hope the Dems don't wake up and ditch him before he has a chance to take the whole rotten party down with him. They have sown the seeds of class and race antagonism for their own benefit for many decades. Now, Democrats, it's time to meet Karma... but you won't like her - she's a real bitch!

The above hissed in response by: DaveR [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 12, 2008 8:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles


Only if that were true. America, unfortunately, is indeed full of people like the fools professional victims in the TUCC. These are the folk who whine, "There ought to be a law!" whenever their jealousy, envy, or greed isn't indulged.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 12, 2008 11:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

Dafydd, m'boy, Interstate Commerce. Interstate Commerce, the constitutional garbage can of power. It's truly amazing what's been approved by SCOTUS under the rubric of Interstate Commerce.

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 12, 2008 11:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mikey

As Steven said - see Wickard v Filburn 317 US 111 (1942).


The above hissed in response by: Mikey [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 12, 2008 3:27 PM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

Or more recently the California Medical Marijuana SCOTUS decision, which stated that marijuana grown in California, for sale within California, that never comes anywhere near the California border, is nonetheless "interstate commerce" and thus can be criminalized by the Feds.

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 12, 2008 5:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Da Coyote

If you want to be protected from original ideas, or even proven ideas that work... just scratch a liberal. The vacuum contained within does not even have the normal quantum activity. It's really, really a vacuum.

The above hissed in response by: Da Coyote [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 13, 2008 6:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

Ah but Dafydd, surely someone of Sen Obama's intellect, brilliance, and education (plus, factoring in that he taught Constitutional Law part time) would know what Congress is allowed to do. After all, he is simply brilliant and has figured out why people believe in God, why they hunt, and why they dislike illegal immigration. A man of his mighty intellect simply could not be mistaken on what the Constitution allows our Congress to do. And now I suppose I'd better go polish up my shotgun so I can kill some of those vicious clay pigeons, thereby relieving some of my bitterness.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 13, 2008 7:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mrs. Peel

Steven, as I recall, Gonzales v. Raich actually dealt with a woman who was growing marijuana for her own (medical) use, in full compliance with CA state law, and not selling it. And yet, according to SCOTUS, the federal government gets to regulate that as "interstate commerce." Um, in that situation, there's no interstate, and there's no commerce. As Justice Thomas said, if the Commerce Clause covers that, it's hard to imagine what it doesn't cover.

The above hissed in response by: Mrs. Peel [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 13, 2008 7:16 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved