 | All you need to know about Paulsons new planby Gary Kaultbaums Bad Karma on September 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
(8 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Skip everything else and go to Section 8: Review.
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Last time I checked that’s slightly unconstitutional.
Sieg Heil!
September 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pmI like this one in Section 2:
(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;
September 20th, 2008 at 3:47 pmYea, checks and balances were always over-rated. The sewer pipe from Washington DC flows a lot easier without all those pesky valves and bends in the pipe.
This is truly unbelievable.
And the Republicans and Democrats will just rubber stamp the damned thing without protest since protest will be characterized as miscalculated and/or unpatriotic.
“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
Incredible.
Mish went on to state that the $700,000,000,000 is a ceiling that has a 2 year life span. If $100,000,000,000 of bad mortgages taken in are sold off then it could be replaced with $100,000,000,000 of new bad mortgages.
Yep, putting one guy in charge of that without any oversight is a fantastic idea.
This makes me sick
September 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pmWhy should anyone or a court of law be able view anything?
September 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pmWe think we a re buying assets, but in reality we are buying derivatives….
Remeber this is the USSA now…you have no constitution!
unconstitutional
Har har har!
Like that means anything. About as much as “shall not be infringed”. (4473 anybody?)
September 20th, 2008 at 7:51 pmUnconstitutional? Perhaps not. I refer you to Article III, Section 2:
“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
September 20th, 2008 at 7:53 pm“Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.
Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a)…”
Translation: “After the election, and who cares about the semi-annual reports thereafter”.
Ozark. Your section, “(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government”
…translates to “Bill Gross gets a $50B piece of the action, as well as anyone else who lobbied hard enough for it.”
This is basically the anti-dog-eat-dog rule. Directive 10-289’s only a matter of time.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:53 pmI have a question for all the Commies on this site. Where is the ACLU during all of this? Why are they wasting their time defending fuckheads at Gitmo? Why are they not challenging the authority of the Executive and the Federal Reserve to spend money which has not been appropriated by Congress? Serious legal and constitutional issues have been raised, especially concerning the AIG bailout. Why is the ACLU more interested in defending Terrorism than Capitalism?
September 20th, 2008 at 8:45 pmHard Right,
September 21st, 2008 at 7:14 amThey are a visual piece for your mind that questions inconsistencies that the brain can not ignore. The completion of the matrix….lol…who knows why they would act in defense of terrorists and not Americans.