Posted on 06/09/2009 4:28:47 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
Edited on 06/09/2009 4:38:36 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
“Unless the military steps in, which it won’t,”
I don’t think there is a legal way for the military to act.
They’d have to break with existing law and lots of tradition to do that.
Few if any soldiers would follow a gaggle of rogue generals and colonels.
So the court said screw the secured creditors and give money to the union. This is exactly the kind of decision which would be made by nominee Sotomayor, who thinks her ethnicity and sex should govern her decisions, instead of being governed by what the law says.
Without the rule of law there is no freedom. If people don’t respect the law, they will ignore it. The Supreme Court, the Socialist Obama, and the Socialist Congress are taking away our freedom and promoting chaos.
Soon Congress will pass more socialized medicine, and among other things there will be long waits for treatment, with the government dictating what treatment we can receive, and when we can get it. This is more than an inconvenience; it is a matter of life and death. The government is literally taking away our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
EVERYONE: Bombard your congressmorons with protests, get involved in protests such as the Tea Parties. Support the Fair Tax —— www.fairtax.org
Do it now before it’s too late.
“Harry Reid is pushing a bill in Congress that would abolish the 22nd Amendment..”
I just looked in http://thomas.loc.gov for Ried bills and 22nd Amendment bills and could find none. Do you have a link or bill number?
Duh. Of course it would be illegal for the military to act - unless of course they convinced themselves that Obama had violated his oath and Congress was not going to do anything. I dunno.
I honestly have no idea what the troops would do. They are almost all profoundly patriotic and committed to the Constitution and our system. I think the crunch would only come if there were state level organized resistance to the regime -- with the state guard opposing the federal government - and federal troops were faced with firing on fellow Americans who were arguably defending the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold against the lawless Obama regime. I'm no seer, I have no idea what most officers and soldiers would do.
I don’t see what everyone is worrying about. That market’s going up big today!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-china-optimism-lifts-stock-futures
It’s a happy day in Obamaland! (Until it isn’t.)
Americans, who buy bonds/corporate notes to support our economy, become the latest target/casualty in 0b0z0’s destruction of our system of capitalism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2268541/posts
Peter Schiff Report - June 8 2009 - Video Blog (Creditors legal contracts abolished)
youtube ^ | June 8 ,2009 | sickoflibs/peter schiff
Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:22:43 PM by sickoflibs
“…Hopefully the Supreme Court will throw this whole thing out and uphold the rights of the creditors. We don’t want to have a precedent where the courts can simply throw out the rights of secured creditors. What the government is arguing in their brief is that the secured creditor’s interests don’t matter …because a real bankruptcy would have even MORE hardships for everyone else and the workers. We don’t want to have a system that says if you loan money to a company they don’t have to pay you back because other people will suffer in the process. Why would anyone one want to lend money to a company, particularly one in difficulty, if they couldn’t find a secure way to lend it? Not secure because they were afraid any type of security they had for their loans would be set aside in bankruptcy in favor of some special interest that has political clout?
The real irony is you had creditors who loaned money to Wall Street, to investment commercial banks who got completely bailed out.. …the government made all the creditors whole. Why does the government make some creditors whole and then go to a situation like Chrysler where creditors who are secured who have assets they could have sold to make themselves whole, now the government screws them?.Where the government basically steals their collateral from them? So where is the due process of law where you have favored individuals getting bailouts by the government and you have other individuals being denied due process and having collateral stolen from them by the government? All of this sends a clear message to anyone that would potentially loan money to Americans: ‘Don’t do it, don’t risk it. You might not get paid back because our courts are not going to enforce these contracts’. . Remember that the creditor here in the Chrysler is a pension fund for a state government. So if our supreme court is ready to screw our own citizens, our own state government employees;. Imagine how quickly they would set aside the rights of foreigner companies or investors. This is the wrong message to send” .
Peter then predicts correctly that the SCOTUS caves in to political pressure as they did today.
“What could the constitutional issue have been?”
5th Amendment
You are right.
This move to ignore the bond holders is deliberate and calculated. One more brick removed from the foundation of our financial system. It has to collapse in order to replace it with Marxism. Comrade obama is doing well.
The link you provided goes nowhere, but dangnabit, the information you provided is correct. Here’s some more information, from a non-government site that tracks bills:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5
THERE IS NO MORE RULE OF LAW
Sorry about the links, I lifted the HTML from Thomas so all the links would be referenced from there. I should have zapped all the href= code so as not to tempt people into clicking.
Domestic pauperization and electorate brainwashing is not why the Dow is up. Social conservatives should show more understanding of the stock market dynamics instead of attributing market movements to conspiratorial theories.
That's why I put the ? mark. I believe some of the businesses they are involved in are unionized and others aren't. The point remains that the primary risk factor is whether the business is unionized or not.
Who's going to buy one now? The right wing works and buys. They left wing feeds. Feeders have no money to buy new cars, and right wingers aren't going to have anything to do with Welfare Auto.
Again, Oboma has wasted another trillion bailing out noting. Everything he's done so far has been a miserable failure. Everything. He hasn't done one thing right at all.
Man, I bet the dems are furious right now that Hillary was pushed aside by the left wing extremists and now they're stuck with an incompetent community organizer.
But no matter what the union status, this case stands for the proposition that common stock owners can pressure the government to step in and give them preference over preferred stock owners and bond holders in the event of a bankruptcy. Hence there is no more incentive to purchase bonds. Companies will have to resort to selling common stock to do long term financing thereby diluting the value of common stock and driving the market down. The value of preferred stock will likewise drop because there is no incentive to purchase it if it is not given "preferred" status.
This precedent will drive down the value of all stocks and all bonds. It is a perfect storm for a complete financial meltdown.
Somehow I think this is a planned action to make 401k's worthless so that the government can institute some government run retirement fund in addition to Social Security.
If Obama isn't the Anti-Christ, then he is Satan himself.
No wonder he can't produce that Birth Certificate. He was around before paper was invented.
Surely, you jest, right?
It was a unanimous verdict!
We can at least stop him by getting the democrats out of the House and Senate in 2010. Stop the funding - stop the madness. Then we can go after all his miserable failures in 2012.
If we want to rid ourselves of a democrat House and Senate, we have to stop debating their issues. It let's them set the agenda! Instead of giving voters a choice between "yes for the left" or "no for the left", let's give them Conservatism as another choice. We've got to get Conservatism out in front for the entire world to see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.