Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Barry’s America

Damn, Seems the expropriation and handover of Chrysler to the UAW and Fiat is still not a completely done deal.

The State of Indiana, in the person of Treasurer Richard Murdoch, is

petitioning the [Supreme] Court to rule on Barack Obama’s blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, which explicitly authorizes Congress, and not the president, to determine bankruptcy laws. In particular, Murdock is challenging the president’s unashamed indifference to more than 220 years of bankruptcy precedent, which puts senior, or secured, creditors ahead of junior, or unsecured, creditors during bankruptcy proceedings.

Good on him. About time someone with clout seriously challenged the corruption of this deal. It stank then, and it stinks now.

Camelot, pah.

One Comment

  1. Paul Marks says:

    The Treasurer of Indiana has tried this before – arguing (correctly) that putting unsecured creditors (such as the U.A.W.) over secured creditors (such as the police and teachers pension funds of Indiana) overturned centuries of bankrutcy law.

    The courts just kicked the case upstairs to the Supreme Court – which refused to hear the case.

    However, even if the Supreme Court now agrees to hear the case we still may not see Barry Obama be told to stop being a naughty boy.

    Libertarians often praise the Common Law system, but they should not. For what it does is given government appointed judges a lot of arbitrary power.

    For example, in the 1930s (over the government gold confiscation and a lot else) the Supreme Court (supposedly a “conservative” Supreme Court at that) handed down judgement after judgement that flatly contradicted the Constitution (indeed they were only attacked for those judgementst that did NOT contradict the Constitution).

    How did this happen? The duty of the S.C. to “interpret” the Constitution – we have gone from Common Law being an effort to find the law, into the concept that Common Law is about “making law” (i.e. allowing, or even leading, the most vile forms of collectivism).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *