President Obama Taking 90% Of Pay Constitutional?

[rkwright]

You do realize that you're arguing the entire bill is unconstitutional, not just the executive pay portion.

Something tells me the Supreme court is not going to rule the biggest spending package in US history unconstitutional - especially when its easy to fudge it and say it fits within the non-delegation doctrine.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='rkwright' date='23 October 2009 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1256352415' post='1990474']
You do realize that you're arguing the entire bill is unconstitutional, not just the executive pay portion.[/quote]

Yes, I fully realize that I am.

[quote name='rkwright' date='23 October 2009 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1256352415' post='1990474']Something tells me the Supreme court is not going to rule the biggest spending package in US history unconstitutional - especially when its easy to fudge it and say it fits within the non-delegation doctrine.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but the Court many times has supported injustices before which it later over turned as unconstitutional. As I pointed out in our discussions of Constitutional Law and the SCOTUS. Namely, I pointed out those injustices on our discussions of the second amendment rights of individual citizens. So I would still point the same thing out here. Anyway, unless the SCOTUS does something about it they have no oversight or check on the TARP money and how it's used anyway.

Edited October 24, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[rkwright]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='23 October 2009 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1256353224' post='1990488']
Yes, I fully realize that I am.



Perhaps, but the Court many times has supported injustices before which it later over turned as unconstitutional. As I pointed out in our discussions of Constitutional Law and the SCOTUS. Namely, I pointed out those injustices on our discussions of the second amendment rights of individual citizens. So I would still point the same thing out here. Anyway, useless the SCOTUS does something about it they have no oversight or check on the TARP money and how it's used anyway.
[/quote]

Well but thats also the beauty in agencies. If we don't like how its going we just vote the president out (instead of having to change congress, repeal the law, and so on...) If Obama goes out in a few years, we get a whole new group who decides on how to spend the money.

Either way, Agencies were not contemplated in the constitution. We're in a hold new game now.

I'm not sure this would come before the court, and if it does I'm not really sure they would overturn it just for fear of they're messing with the biggest package in US history. Although, it is possible.

I personally think there might be chance on the legal grounds. Like the article says the bailout was a pretty big expansion of agency power. The courts might real it in. But then again they might not because it is that big.

I don't have as firm of an opinion on this as I did on the second amendment issue.

Edited October 24, 2009 by rkwright

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='23 October 2009 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1256319230' post='1990311']
You are good hearted, but your argument still smells of envy. After this next class, or when I return home I will show how.



Find it provide it. Documents of the Holy Pontiffs. I know you can find condemnation of Capitalism without Morals, but as a whole? I doubt you will be able too provide such evidence.
[/quote]

I think you forgot to show how it was envious. I still don't think it was... I'm thinking objectively, and quite honestly I don't care if I'm completely destitute.

[size="2"][quote]
[/size][left][size="2"]104. Accordingly, when directing Our special attention to the changes whichthe capitalist economic system has undergone since Leo's time, We have in mindthe good not only of those who dwell in regions given over to"capital" and industry, but of all mankind.[/size] [/left]
[left][size="2"]105. In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentratedin our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship isconsolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only thetrustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administeraccording to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.[/size] [/left]
[left][size="2"]106. This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, sincethey hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule thelending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-bloodwhereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp thesoul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will.[/size] [/left]
[left][size="2"]107. This concentration of power and might, the characteristic mark, as itwere, of contemporary economic life, is the fruit that the unlimited freedom ofstruggle among competitors has of its own nature produced, and which lets onlythe strongest survive; and this is often the same as saying, those who fight themost violently, those who give least heed to their conscience.[/size] [/left]
[left][size="2"]108. This accumulation of might and of power generates in turn three kinds ofconflict. First, there is the struggle for economic supremacy itself; then thereis the bitter fight to gain supremacy over the State in order to use in economicstruggles its resources and authority; finally there is conflict between Statesthemselves, not only because countries employ their power and shape theirpolicies to promote every economic advantage of their citizens, but also becausethey seek to decide political controversies that arise among nations through theuse of their economic supremacy and strength.[/size] [/left]
[left][size="3"][size="2"]109. [b]The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic lifeare those which you yourselves, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, see anddeplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship hassupplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeededgreed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, andcruel. To these are to be added the grave evils that have resulted from anintermingling and shameful confusion of the functions and duties of publicauthority with those of the economic sphere - such as, one of the worst, thevirtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to siton high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intentupon the one common good and justice, is become a slave, surrendered anddelivered to the passions and greed of men. And as to international relations,two different streams have issued from the one fountain-head: On the one hand,economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a no lessdeadly and accursed internationalism of finance or international imperialismwhose country is where profit is.[/b][/size][/size][/left]
[left][size="3"][size="2"][/quote][/size][/size][/left]
[left]
[/left]
[left][size="3"][size="2"]from Quadragesimo Anno... I know that's your favorite one to quote condemning socialism.[/size][/size][/left]
[left]
[/left]
[size="2"]His Holiness Pius XI describes the inevitable outcome of a truly capitalistic society, and in this encyclical he condemns both individualism and communism. He clearly says a middle ground must be found; he does not [i]explicitly[/i] condemn capitalism, but he condemns all the fruits of it. I do not think it is a stretch to say that he de facto condemns capitalism.[/size]

[aalpha1989]

[quote]
[size="2"][b]Free competition, kept within definiteand due limits, and still more economic dictatorship, must be effectivelybrought under public authority in these matters which pertain to the latter'sfunction.[/b] The public institutions themselves, of peoples, moreover, ought tomake all human society conform to the needs of the common good; that is, to thenorm of social justice. If this is done, that most important division of sociallife, namely, economic activity, cannot fail likewise to return to right andsound order[/size].
[/quote]

This is from the next paragraph of the same encyclical. He is no fan of capitalism.


On an unrelated note...


Who cares if Obama's actions are constitutional?

I understand that the constitution is there to keep politicians in check. I understand that it represents some kind of "higher law"... but as Christians let's be honest. The Constitution of the United States is very very fallible, and it IS NOT A HIGHER LAW. The only higher laws are natural and divine laws... to say that the Constitution is a legitimate higher law is to be playing "pretend" for the sake of a stable government. I don't think that playing "pretend" is a good way to do [i]anything[/i] right, especially when governing millions of people (and especially when this supposedly "higher law" was written by anti-Catholic deists). As a Catholic I can accept the Constitution as a legitimate authority; I cannot, however, accept it as a legitimate [i]infallible[/i] authority. Actions can be unconstitutional and still right.

That said, I do find Obama's actions in this case to be wrong, but not because they are unconstitutional.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1257019079' post='1994476']
Who cares if Obama's actions are constitutional?
[/quote]

FACEPLAM! St. Thomas More would be in shock at such a absurd statement!

And your right I have forgotten up till now. I don't have the time as of now. But I will later today or tomorrow. Bump the tread again if I forget.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 October 2009 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1257019879' post='1994481']
FACEPLAM! St. Thomas More would be in shock at such a absurd statement!

[/quote]

St. Thomas More lived in a country with an [i]unwritten [/i]constitution; one that was based on Catholic teachings. We live in one which has been dominated by humanists and puritans.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1257020451' post='1994490']
St. Thomas More lived in a country with an [i]unwritten [/i]constitution; one that was based on Catholic teachings. We live in one which has been dominated by humanists and puritans.
[/quote]

Really I don't have time for this now. But your being quite absurd. Saint Thomas More would be applaud by your statement. He believed in the Law, for out which there would be only chaos, the Law for us the Constitution.

[Didacus]

Compare losing 90% of your to losing your job all together?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 October 2009 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1257020601' post='1994492']
Really I don't have time for this now. But your being quite absurd. Saint Thomas More would be applaud by your statement. He believed in the Law, for out which there would be only chaos, the Law for us the Constitution.
[/quote]

He didn't believe in [i]any[/i] law, he believed in just law. Whether the Constitution is entirely just is a philosophical question. I don't believe it is.

[rkwright]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1257024097' post='1994543']
He didn't believe in [i]any[/i] law, he believed in just law. Whether the Constitution is entirely just is a philosophical question. I don't believe it is.
[/quote]

I don't know where you get on this idea that laws, such as the constitutional, are merely philosophical questions. Laws impact people lives in a real way every day. For those murdered in abortion, to the slaves, to gun owners, to the press, to the Catholic church - whether the constitution is just is more than a philosophical question.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='rkwright' date='31 October 2009 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1257034118' post='1994620']
I don't know where you get on this idea that laws, such as the constitutional, are merely philosophical questions. Laws impact people lives in a real way every day. For those murdered in abortion, to the slaves, to gun owners, to the press, to the Catholic church - whether the constitution is just is more than a philosophical question.
[/quote]


Pathos is not an effective method of discovering the truth. That is what philosophy is for. Philosophy discovers whether or not the constitution is just; for specific cases you have to look at the implementation, not the document itself.

[rkwright]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1257038533' post='1994639']
Pathos is not an effective method of discovering the truth. That is what philosophy is for. Philosophy discovers whether or not the constitution is just; for specific cases you have to look at the implementation, not the document itself.
[/quote]

You've missed the point of my last point. If you discover the truth that some part of the constitution is interpreted unjustly, then great for you. But for those who live it every day its much more than just a philosophical question.

Who cares that Obama's actions are unconstitutional? Those who are seeking to discover the truth of justice - sure... thats easy. But to those who experience the injustice first hand - absolutely.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1257019079' post='1994476']
This is from the next paragraph of the same encyclical. He is no fan of capitalism.
[/quote]

He is not outright condemning Capitalism. He is in effect arguing that Capitalism must have morals.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='31 October 2009 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1257018226' post='1994471']
His Holiness Pius XI describes the inevitable outcome of a truly capitalistic society, and in this encyclical he condemns both individualism and communism. He clearly says a middle ground must be found; he does not [i]explicitly[/i] condemn capitalism, but he condemns all the fruits of it. I do not think it is a stretch to say that he de facto condemns capitalism.
[/quote]

It is quite a stretch if he did not not [i]explicitly[/i] condemn capitalism.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1256281463' post='1990160']
You are right that I argued that a person doesn't have a right to make that much. I later contradicted myself when I said that I didn't care how much they had access to, as long as they used it for the greater good. I guess I haven't thought it all the way through.

Here's my tentative decision. Someone can be too rich only if they use an unreasonable amount on themselves. [/quote]

This sounds envious because who defines what is a unreasonable amount, and when it is ok to take away that person's property?

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1256281463' post='1990160']I still believe that silk shirts and private jets are unnecessary and I don't believe a case could ever be made for them. [/quote]

This sounds envious there is nothing evil with owning silk shirts and private jets. I do believe the Pope has both is he evil for it? Or does the Pope get a pass?

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='23 October 2009 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1256281463' post='1990160']The amount of money that a person controls is not really my concern. If a person earns a great amount of money justly (and I don't believe that money earned on the stock market IS justly earned, but that's another argument) then they should use it well. By using it well, I mean that they should first provide for their own needs and for the needs of their family. Of course that involves clothing and transportation... but by dressing oneself in silk and flying in such style, is one trying to impress God or man? When Aquinas addresses modesty in dress in the [i]Summa[/i], he speaks more against fancy dress than against revealing dress. This is because Greed is a greater sin than Lust. [/quote]

And this goes to judging a person's heart, because what you're stating seems quite envious. If I'm not mistaken it was Aquinas or one of the great Saints that taught a person should dress to his lot in life. It would be immodest for a King or Queen to dress down, but it would be immodest for a regular Joe to dress as if he were a king.
When one's needs have been met reasonably (a question of prudence) the needs of others should be met.

Edited November 1, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[havok579257]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='31 October 2009 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1257046894' post='1994673']
This sounds envious because who defines what is a unreasonable amount, and when it is ok to take away that person's property?



This sounds envious there is nothing evil with owning silk shirts and private jets. I do believe the Pope has both is he evil for it? Or does the Pope get a pass?



And this goes to judging a person's heart, because what you're stating seems quite envious. If I'm not mistaken it was Aquinas or one of the great Saints that taught a person should dress to his lot in life. It would be immodest for a King or Queen to dress down, but it would be immodest for a regular Joe to dress as if he were a king.
When one's needs have been met reasonably (a question of prudence) the needs of others should be met.
[/quote]


i'll weigh in here. if these companies asked for the bailouts, government money, then the government has the right to dictate things with in the company. it would be no different than the average joe. if he accepted money from the government, then they should have a say in how that money is spent.

its not a matter of how much these men/women make. its the matter that they asked the government for help. so the government helped them but as with most help these days, it comes with some conditions.

also as people have said, if these men and women do not like the pay cuts, they are free to work somewhere else, make an appeal to the courts, protest or what not. they have a free choice on their future.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='havok579257' date='01 November 2009 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1257050988' post='1994706']
i'll weigh in here. if these companies asked for the bailouts, government money, then the government has the right to dictate things with in the company. it would be no different than the average joe. if he accepted money from the government, then they should have a say in how that money is spent.

its not a matter of how much these men/women make. its the matter that they asked the government for help. so the government helped them but as with most help these days, it comes with some conditions.

also as people have said, if these men and women do not like the pay cuts, they are free to work somewhere else, make an appeal to the courts, protest or what not. they have a free choice on their future.
[/quote]

But Government forced them to take it... as I've said repeatably. Again the argument you offer is circular.

Edited November 1, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[havok579257]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='01 November 2009 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1257051594' post='1994711']
But Government forced them to take it... as I've said repeatably.
[/quote]


i was only referring to the ones who asked the government for the bail outs. i will have to research some on the ones who were forced, but as to the ones who asked for the bail outs, they asked for it, so they have to deal with the consequences.

[havok579257]

how were these banks forced to take the money? from the articles you posted it seems the banks were recommended to take the money. they were even warned about consequences if they did not take the money. yet i don't see where they were forced to take the money. they were told if they didn't, then there would be trouble, but it does not seem like they were forced. they may have been strong armed through fear, but that is not the same as being forced.