RSS
Home
Isn't Obama supposed to know the Constitution?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
One of the items listed in President Obama's resume during his run for President was his experience as a "professor" of Constitutional law. In fact, he bragged about it in a jab at President Bush at a campaign stop in Florida during his 2008 campaign.
I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.
Yet, it would seem that "Professor Obama" and his Car Czar, Steven Rattner, are in some constitutional "doo-doo" concerning their forced bankruptcy filing of the Chrysler Corporation.
As The Washington Post reports:
The Indiana funds contend that the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to a new company -- to be jointly owned by Fiat, the United Auto Workers union and the U.S. and Canadian governments -- breaches numerous laws. For one, they argue, the process tramples on the funds' rights as senior lenders to Chrysler because they would recover less than junior lenders. The Indiana funds hold about $42 million of the $6.9 billion in secured loans. Under the agreement hammered out by the Obama administration with most of the first-lien lenders, the group would recover about $2 billion, or 29 cents on the dollar.
The funds also contend that the quick bankruptcy proceedings pursued by Chrysler and the Obama administration -- a federal bankruptcy judge approved the sale 32 days after the automaker filed for one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history -- did not comply with bankruptcy law. The Indiana funds are also arguing that the Treasury illegally used money from the federal Troubled Assets Relief Program, meant for financial institutions, to prop up Chrysler.
Besides the Constitutional question concerning the seizing of assets and redistributing them in a manner contrary to written contracts, the L.A. Times is reporting that there is another question concerning the use of the "Troubled Asset Relief Program (T.A.R.P.) funds. According to Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), the possibility exists that Obama violated the Constitutional by "misusing" these funds when the administration dispersed them in the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler.
In a major setback to Obama, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a "stay order" on the bankruptcy proceedings. As if the order from the Supreme Court wasn't bad enough for the President, it came from the justice considered the most liberal member of the court. Considering that it was her decision alone to accept or deny the request, the fact that she did so doesn't bode well for the "professor."
To be fair, I think Obama does know the Constitution and how it works, I just think he doesn't care. His facio-socialist agenda has become much more important than any "law" he might be overstepping. This is further evidenced in his "empathetic" nominee to replace David Souter, Sonia Sotomayor. As we are finding out, her concern for the Constitution is not as great as her opinion that a "hispanic female" would rule better than a "white male."
Clearly, adhering to the letter of the Constitution isn't all that important to Obama, which begs the question - Isn't Obama supposed to know the Constitution?
Other articles by David: Obama defers to unions over U.S. mayors, Politically correct hate speech and the Dr. Tiller murder, Where are all those privacy-rights liberals now?, So, how do you measure a "saved" job?, Obama looks for an unclenched hand - gets the finger
Related Articles:
Comments
