Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘constitutional law’

… So What Can Be Done ?!?! [#Iran Nuclear Agreement]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,August 10th,2016

.. according to the terms of the agreement [and the Corker – Cardin bill] , the bill must be voted on by September 17th ..

.. there are several sources that indicate that the entire agreement [as it stands] has NOT been presented to the U.S. Congress . How do we know ? Congressman Pompeo and one of his senate colleagues [I am not sure who] were inadvertanly briefed by the IAEA and the US in Switzerland during the final negotiations . Also , there were classified briefings of members of Congress . Those briefings indicate that there are side deals , the existence of which has not been publically disclosed . So we know the truth …

.. [h/t — WashingtonComPost.com]..
.. [link] to the blog column ..

.. voting on the agreement would be outrageous . Congress has not been presented the entire thing . Also , the whole enterprise has been designed to evade the eyes of the US Congress .

.. so what happens ?? …

.. Congressman Pompeo and constitutional scholar David Rivlin offer a solution …

That review period was supposed to take 60 days and is triggered the day the president submits the agreement to Congress. However, because the president failed to submit the agreement in full, as the law requires, the 60-day clock has not started, and the president remains unable lawfully to waive or lift statutory Iran-related sanctions. Indeed, since the act also provides for the transmittal of the agreement to Congress between July 10 and Sept. 7, the president’s ability to waive statutory sanctions will remain frozen in perpetuity if Congress does not receive the full agreement Monday .

Congress must now confront the grave issues of constitutional law prompted by the president’s failure to comply with his obligations under the act. This is not the first time this administration has disregarded clear statutory requirements, encroaching in the process upon Congress’s legislative and budgetary prerogatives. The fact that this has happened again in the context of a national security agreement vital to the United States and its allies makes the situation all the more serious.

For Congress to vote on the merits of the agreement without the opportunity to review all of its aspects would both effectively sanction the president’s unconstitutional conduct and be a major policy mistake. Instead, both houses should vote to register their view that the president has not complied with his obligations under the act by not providing Congress with a copy of an agreement between the IAEA and Iran, and that, as a result, the president remains unable to lift statutory sanctions against Iran. Then, if the president ignores this legal limit on his authority, Congress can and should take its case to court.

.. don’t vote on the agreement . Vote on a resolution that demands that the entire agreement be disclosed publically . Also , said resolution should state that the Corker – Cardin bill is not in effect , due to the failure of the ObamaCraps to present it to Congress . Let the DemoCraps filibuster that …

Advertisements

Posted in congressional intent, congressional oversight, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Why Hide the Side Agreements ?? [#Iran Nuclear Agreement]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,August 8th,2016

.. why ? ..

.. to hide the real details of the agreement from the party that needs to know it most : the U.S. Congress ..

.. the French Parliament is not voting on it . Neither is the British House of Commons . nor is anyone else …

.. [h/t — InvestorsBusinessDaily.com]..
.. [link] to the blog column ..

.. however , the U.S. Congress is voting on it , both Houses , not just one . It is being voted under the terms of the Corker – Cardin bill , which provides that the action is treated as an executive agreement . It thereby goes ahead unless a resolution of disapproval is vetoed , and the veto is overridden ..

.. Fred Fleitz is right . The Corker – Cardin bill is a fraud . It perverts the United States Constitution , which should be treating this thing as a treaty . Due to His Lordship ‘ s [Obama ‘ s] legal and extralegal pirouettes , it is being treated as an ” executive agreement . ” Which , in this case , has it backwards . POTUS should be seeking votes to approve a treaty  . He is not . He is seeking support , instead , to sustain an expected veto …

.. What is  going on now is even more cowardly . POTUS is seeking even more support  . The question brings up the point : Why is he doing this ? His Lordship has , in effect , lied  to each and every member of the U.S. Congress , in addition to the P5 + 1 group , and , even , ironically , Iran . The added support would allow POTUS and the DemoCraps to filibuster the resolution of disapproval . It is a cowardly act , thus avoiding a full and free vote …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… When You have lost Prof. Larry Tribe [#con law opinion][#epa powergrab]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,July 16th,2016

.. you are in real trouble …

.. Professor Tribe is a liberal ‘ s liberal . he does not side with businesses all that often . He works with business even less . Which makes his study and his appearance on the behalf of the Peabody Corporation all that more surprising . That is just the beginning of the surprise , though …

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the article …

.. the huge shock for just about everyone was the legal and constitutional backside that he ripped from the hide of the ObamaCrap Administration , especially for its antics involving the E.P.A. . He gave the ObamaCraps a very hard lesson in , what is , in effect , Con Law 101 , the Separation of Powers …

.. something like this will carry on long and hard after this . This testimony and the study is something that is legal scholarship capable , and can be quoted in legal briefs , even if Prof . Tribe did not exactly intend it that way . Well , , it will be used that way , though …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Watch a Lesson in Con Law …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,February 19th,2014

.. no , not con law , as in criminal law .

.. no , con law , as in constitutional law .

.. U.S. Senator Mike Lee [R-Ut] is a dandy example of a fine lawyer . He has his own top – flight backgroud , at [ ] , and challenged some who I believed was a fine U.S. Senator (Robert Bennett) in the GOP primary convention . Doing that is not easy , but in Utah , it is possible and is doable . Lee did it , and eventually will succeed Orrin Hatch as the senior senator .

.. Xavier Becerra is a fairly decent congresscritter , but he is out of his league when it comes to dealing in con law . Mike Lee ‘ s upbringing [his father was former Reagan era Solicitor General Rex Lee] and his parentage gives him a big leg up . Watch him in action , taking Becerra apart on the unconstitutionality of POTUS ‘ acts …

.. [h/t — RealClearPolitics]..
.. [link] to the policy debate (courtesy of FoxNewsSunday) ..

Posted in accountability, congressional oversight, constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… These Cities should try Studying Constitutional Law [Richmond , CA ]

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,September 12th,2013

.. it is abundantly obvious that by their actions , the city fathers of Richmond , California , have not . They have chosen to completely ignore California ‘ s constitution , as well as the U.S. Constitution .

.. These numbskulls want to intervene in a private proceeding : that being between a homeowner and their mortgage banker . The mortgage in question is what is called “underwater,” or that the value of the home is less than that of the relevant mortgage . What the city wants to do is seize it , take it away from the bank [forcing it to take a loss] , and work through another private party (with political connections , of course) to issue the homeowner a new mortgage at a reduced value , thus placing the mortgage possibly “above water.” The issuer would be the new holder , and would make a killing from the added interest , plus the added fees . nice stunt .

.. No , not so nice . These mortgages would not be “insured” into the secondary market , so that the issuer could get money to try to repeat the stunt . The city of Richmond obviously does not have the scratch , and is being used for its use of its eminent domain power . How gross of an abuse of power do you all think that this is ?

.. Big time . The banks are not all that popular , I will grant you that . That is for sure . They are considered people , and their investors are most certainly people . These folks have rights , and their constitutional rights have been damaged . The courts are real lunatic out there in CA , but they are not that loonie , at least that I would think . Also , the U.S. Supreme Court would come down on them , and hard . There is no way in hell that this action would stand .

.. from Bloomberg News …

Richmond Eminent Domain Plan Goes to Court Showdown

            By Karen Gullo –             Sep 12, 2013

BlackRock Inc. (BLK), Pacific Investment Management Co., DoubleLine Capital LP and other bondholders are asking a court to block a proposal by Richmond, California, to seize underwater mortgages through eminent domain.

With this week’s vote by Richmond’s city council to press ahead with an effort its mayor claims will help homeowners avoid foreclosure and fend off blight, the dispute between the northern California oil refinery town and Wall Street moved today to the federal courthouse in San Francisco.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is hearing arguments from both sides on whether to order the city to halt efforts to use eminent domain to take over loans. He will also consider the city’s request to find that the bondholders went to court prematurely and dismiss their claims because the city council hasn’t approved the plan.

A ruling favoring bondholders, who sued the city through their bank trustees, would dissuade other cities from following in Richmond’s footsteps, said Dan Schechter, a law professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. A decision for Richmond won’t encourage other municipalities to follow suit because it wouldn’t deal directly with the merits of bondholders’ claims that the Richmond plan is unconstitutional, he said.

“The court will hold that no injunctive relief is available at this time. That doesn’t mean the bondholders are without remedy,” Schechter said by phone. “If no injunction is issued, it would preserve the status quo.”

Troubled Mortgages

The city council voted at about 2 a.m. yesterday to move forward with a program to reduce the principal on troubled mortgages. Under the plan proposed by Steven Gluckstern’s Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC, the city would seize the loans and refinance them, providing borrowers with built-in equity, to avert foreclosures.

San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners would provide services and arrange for private investment funds that would profit by buying the loans for less than property values.

The company is shopping around the plan to several communities; Richmond is the only one to pursue the plan, City Manager Bill Lindsay told the council Sept. 10.

The city’s plan violates constitutional protections for private contracts, interstate commerce and the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, according to complaints filed by Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Deutsche Bank AG and Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) on behalf of investors that hold bonds backed by the Richmond mortgages.

Banks’ Attorney

“If Richmond is allowed to proceed, other local governments would likely follow suit, with the result that losses across residential mortgage backed securities trusts and their investors would exceed billions of dollars,” Rocky Tsai, an attorney for the banks, said in a court filing.

The Wells Fargo lawsuit is “harassment,” and an injunction should be rejected because the city council hasn’t voted to use eminent domain, and even if it did, the banks could fight back in the court that will decide matters in the seizure proceeding, Scott Kronland, an attorney for the city, said in court filings.

“The parade of horribles the banks invoke are unfounded,”he said.

The cases are Wells Fargo Bank v. City of Richmond, 13-3663, and Bank of New York Mellon v. City of Richmond, 13-3664, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

Posted in financial opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »