Lawyers, Guns and Money: From Louis XIV to George W. Bush

Sunday, September 21, 2008
From Louis XIV to George W. Bush

Here, in just 32 words, is a summation of the state of American democracy in our time: "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."

Translation: Congress will take $700 billion from the pockets of ordinary Americans, and hand it to Henry Paulson. Paulson then has absolute, unreviewable authority to do with this money what he thinks best.

Many people have pointed out in the past day or so that this is bad. What no one seems to be raising is the question of whether it's even legal. Of course after eight years of George W. L'etat, C'est Moi Bush, the question of whether the biggest financial rescue operation in American history is actually legal is considered nothing more than a bothersome technicality, if that, to be dealt with by the administration's lawyers to the satisfaction of Very Serious People everywhere.

I'm not an expert in administrative law, but I would be curious to learn what in the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes Congress to delegate this kind of completely unreviewable spending power to an executive branch agency.

Furthermore, even if Congress has purportedly authorized itself to do something like this, there's another act, the Constitution of the United States, which requires something called "due process." When it comes to making laws, due process has been interpreted by our courts to include the basic principle that while Congress can delegate substantial rulemaking authority to executive branch agencies, it can't simply hand the executive a blank check and beg our leaders to spend the money wisely, while promising not to interfere in any way, and moreover barring the courts from inquiring into any aspect of the matter.

This legislation as written is the equivalent of taking the view that it's legal for Congress to give the president an enormous army equipped with lots of shiny weapons and big beautiful bombs, while leaving it to his complete discretion to start wars against any country he believes might come to pose a threat to the United States at some point in the future.

And speaking of the Bush doctrine, when considering just how questionable all this is, let's not forget there's a good chance that the man who thought Sarah Palin was a good choice to succeed him as president will in a few months be appointing Paulson's successor.

A further point: The legality of this sort of completely unregulated executive branch discretion isn't merely a formal matter. One reason careful oversight is crucial in this situation is that the most basic question of whether this is a good proposal can't even begin to be answered until Congress and the American people know what exactly the government is proposing to pay for all this bad debt.

In the legislation's present form, we have absolutely no idea. Being asked to sign off on it is equivalent to being asked to buy a bunch of condemned properties on the condition that you'll only find out later what you paid for them. On second thought, I guess that's not actually a metaphor.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

hey andrew jackson had a lot to say abut the fed. etc...and then they screwed him by putting him on a bill...go figure.

what does the bush doctrine have to do with this? and can you be specific reads the 'doctrine'?

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Not having written the article myself, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it likely means act unconsitutionally and fuck everything up in having done so.

Just a guess.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

and your guess is correct by and large....but the larger question is, whats to be done? they, as in congress bush et al all knew this day was coming....they all kept hoping the clock would run out when someone else had the ball in their possession.....dem or rep. this would happening, little would change...the people don't even know what they don't know....

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

And that, as the blessed St. Zappa used to say, is the crux of the biscuit.

I don't think most people care to (or are able to) pay attention to what's really going on. This is frustrating, since it's not all that difficult to, for example, understand this particular issue, but as long as they don't feel it right away, or on a day-to-day basis, they seem not to care.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

Good point. So how long until people feel the affects directly? Surely people can see the value of their investments declining. But, for this to have any arousal on the average American, they will have to feel some direct, deleterious affects. This bailout will likley delay any of those affects until after the election. Any people directly affected by the housing market have already seen the effects so this is nothing new. When should the populace begin to see the effects?

Much the like the funding for the war in Iraq, future generations will be left holding (any paying) this bill.

__________________
All things serve The Beam