Thursday, April 2, 2009

Obama Lacks the Authority... do many of the things he's been doing apparently.

The One got on TV the other day, and went on a bit about how he doesn't want to run the auto companies.

"Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM," Obama said.

But, while he wants to 'make one thing perfectly clear' - some people may have been having a little trouble getting his words to line up with his actions.

Let's Review...

After the bailout monies got passed around Obama started doing things that (certainly to the untrained eye) made it look like "running the auto companies" was exactly what he was doing:

- He 'fired' the General Motors CEO, Rick Wagoner - as well as most of the board
(yes, yes, "suggested their resignations" - whatever, Obama pulled the trigger)

- He has PUSHED Chrysler (a PRIVATELY-HELD company, btw) into merging with Italian car company, Fiat - making it clear to Chrysler that their continued existence depends on the success of said merger.

- He is currently DEMANDING that they start making the "more fuel efficient cars" that HE wants them to build.

Now, I've been looking at all of this as simply incredible - that the President of the United States somehow has the authority to order US Companies to build what he wants, employ who he wants - and merge with foreign companies, all on his say-so?

The President of the United States has that kind of authority?

Congress has Voted and GIVEN HIM this extra-constitutional power? it turns out... No. He Doesn't - And They Haven't.

Barack Obama has No Legal Authority to Direct the Restructuring of GM or Chrysler.

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told on Tuesday that he does not know where President Barack Obama gained legal authority to oversee a restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler."

"House Majority Leader(D)"?

And guess who else can't figure where Obama's authority is coming from?

How about fellow Class-Warrior Chris Dodd?

"Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), meanwhile, he was somewhat surprised that the administration did not consult with him at all about its auto industry plan despite his key committee chairmanship and that he had “been reading about it in the papers basically."

Dodd also said he had questions about the president’s proposal regarding Chrysler.

“One piece that has me somewhat perplexed is whether or not we are providing funds to Chrysler in order to make their position attractive to Fiat,” Dodd said. “That’s going to raise questions in people’s minds.”

Okay, but wait - that's TARP money!

If anything has been well-established thus far, it's that the law (however unconstitutional it may be) clearly states that if you take TARP money then the government owns you!

Chris Dodd finds that part to be something of a head-scratcher too...

Dodd, like Hoyer, expressed uncertainty when asked where the president got the authority to further fund the auto industry and oversee its restructuring given that TARP only authoriz[es] federal aid to financial institutions

Oh, wait.... these are Car Companies, aren't they?

The TARP law specifically says, “The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.”

“The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.”

But... that would mean that Obama couldn't use those "the-world-is-going-end-right-now-if-you-don't-give-us-this-money-without-strings-or-oversight" TARP funds to bailout, restructure or otherwise threaten automakers with in the first place!

Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees that:

Using TARP money to finance a government-driven restructuring of GM and Chrysler as announced by Obama would not be legal without a congressional authorization, said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

“No, it’s not legal without congressional approval,” Franks told “The language is clear. The money is directed toward financial institutions. But that may be the least of our challenge.

"The notion that government could specify what vehicles to make is ridiculous.”

Not. Legal.

So does that make the whole to-do into "Obama's Illegal War on American Corporations"

... it certainly has a certain ring to it, and Orin Hatch seems to agree too:

Hatch told “But I do not want the federal government dictating who runs corporations in this country. Now there is no question there is a lot of leverage with the federal funds. But it’s a very troubling thing that people think politicians can fire a leader of a company.”

Indeed - some people might even consider such a thing... "Unconstitutional".

"We The People" need to do something about this, before I end up using that word so many times in this "First 100 Days" that it loses its meaning.

- MuscleDaddy


  1. This is just more of Obama's narcissistic attack on the constitution. He really does not care about the law, the office or even the country (as shown by his current foreign relations screw up).

    Obama just wants power for powers sake. Nothing he is doing it designed to help anyone, it's all about what the new emperor wants.

  2. Has anyone seen this?

    Controversy Pits Obama Against Tennessee Lawmakers, Business Groups

    Administration May Withhold Stimulus Funds, Restructure Legislature

    NASHVILLE, TN – From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Business groups have slammed a Tennessee commemorative quarter dollar that pairs the familiar slogan with an artist’s rendering of the landmark Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    Responding to the plan’s opponents, the Obama administration has threatened to withhold the state’s economic stimulus funds. The administration is also considering options for restructuring the Tennessee legislature . . .

  3. I'm sick. I've lost my country and don't know where to find it.

  4. I followed the link and read the story.

    At first, I thought it was just the product of an incredibly bad writer - disorganized, following clauses left too vague for what they were supposed to be modifying... and then, there were pieces that I just knew had to be wrong.

    "Rocky Top" was what did it - you just can't mess with an old Opry enthusiast when it comes to 'Rocky Top'.

    So then I started running down the names - all of the names - people, organizations, everything.

    Turns out every single one points back to only one place - that very same story ("Say Anything Blog" picked it up).

    Then, when I was working on this phrase from the story:

    "Donald DeFreeze, leader of Tennessee’s Society for Labor Advocacy (SLA)"

    Ah well, then I happened upon this:

    "Donald DeFreeze" - "SLA"

    This is why you have to be careful.

    - MuscleDaddy

  5. Why does this remind me of a particular German leader who pushed Porche into making Volkswagen?

    Just sayin'...

  6. Paules says,

    Was it not the case during the election that Obama was touted as a constitutional scholar? Has anyone uncovered even a single paper by him on the subject? In truth, Obama was merely a lecturer. How much difference is there between 3x5 note cards and a teleprompter? The guy neither knows nor cares about the constitution. So much for the rule of law.

    So now we have a situation where President Obama is acting like a potentate. His justification: "I won." Large egos are ubiquitous in Washington, but the size of the presidential ego goes well beyond the pale. It won't last much longer. Congressmen are deeply protective of their prerogatives. We're starting to see the first cracks in the Obama facade. Eventually the adults will start to assert themselves over the wayward boy in the Oval Office. We might actually see the checks and balances start to work.

    Much damage has been done already, but the tune will change when the democratic party sees their majority status at risk. The infighting should provide some interesting spectacle. I'm betting Obama gets peevish like the adolescent he is when his own party starts to challenge his authority. Fear not, fellow conservatives, Nemesis is yet to arrive on the field. This time she'll be on our side.

  7. Darkly optimistic, Brother Paules. How much time do you suppose we have?

    Took a call from a Republican Party volunteer this evening. I told them that not only was I not in a position to make a contribution, that even if I were the GOP isn't getting one more dime unless I see some defense of conservative principles. If they feed us another candidate like the last one I'll assume they are unreachable.

  8. Paules says,

    The way I see it the new administration is more inept than it is malicious, and congress more corrupt than it is ideological. Ask yourself this: why do leftists so often have to lie to get their programs passed? It's because their ideology is cover for a scam. Do you think the leaders of the Democratic party either believe or care about global warming? If they believed in the future, they wouldn't be saddling our kids and grandkids with a crushing debt. It's all a scam.

    Let's do a contrast. Define for me conservative principles . . . . . . . . . Okay now, I bet it sounds something like this: we believe in limited government because it's the only way to secure individual liberty. We also believe in fiscal responsibility as necessary to guarantee our future as a nation.

    Lets do the same for the leftists. Social justice: a way to deliver the votes from carefully cultivated victim groups. Economic equality: impossible unless you want to live under a soviet system. Global warming: ridiculous unless you need an excuse for redistribution. You see? The Democratic platform is all based on fraud. It can't work because all the underlying assumptions are faulty and the leadership doesn't believe in them anyway except as a means to accrue power.

    What we are fighting now is not an ideology, but an attempt at oligarchic takeover. Infighting amongst an oligarchy this size is inevitable. It has to be. Eventually legislation will start running at cross purposes with the interests of various factions within the oligarchy. You've got to understand also that Obama is merely the public face of oligarchy. And he's a naif and a fool, not to mention a monumental egoist. When things finally stop going his way, he's going to get pissy.

    Yes, the nation has already been significantly damaged. And the worst of the suffering is yet to come. Yet we hold a few aces. We can pay off our debt with inflated dollars, something no other country can do. This is pretty much guaranteed. Eventually the crisis will build to a point where the people will finally demand fiscal responsibility. Balanced budgets, tax cuts as stimulus, and the magic bullet . . . a fifty year T-bill to refinance the debt should put us back on track.

    In the meantime, each one of us needs to become as self-sufficient as possible so that we might ride out the storm in comfort. Yes, I am darkly optimistic, but optimistic nevertheless.

    ~Paules (OUT)


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.