‘I Don’t Know’ Where Obama Got Legal Authority

IT A[[EARS TO ME AS THE TIME GOES ON THAT THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE THING THAT THIS SOCILIST/COMMUNIST UNAMERICAN (BORN WHO KNOWS WHERE) BASTARD DOES THAT IS EVEN CLOSE TO LEGAL. READ ON.





CNSNews.com



CNSNews.com
Hoyer: ‘I Don’t Know’ Where Obama Got Legal Authority for Auto Plan
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer




House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.)(CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that he does not know where President Barack Obama gained legal authority to oversee a restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler. But if authority is a question, he said, then Congress will grant it to the administration.

However, when Congress tried to enact an auto industry bailout plan in December, the legislation was approved by the House but failed in the Senate where, under the rules, it needed 60 votes.

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), meanwhile, toldCNSNews.com he was somewhat surprised that the administration did not consult with him at all about its auto industry plan despite his key committee chairmanship and that he had “been reading about it in the papers basically.”

Hoyer was similarly candid about his inability to cite the administration’s legal authority for the plan.

“The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com Tuesday.

“I don't know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don't know technically where that authority would be,” Hoyer said. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don't have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don't know technically the answer to that question.”

The White House is implementing its plan under the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) that Congress enacted last year specifically to bail out financial institutions—and not other businesses such as auto manufacturers. When President Bush asked Congress last fall to approve legislation authorizing him to use TARP money to bailout the auto industry, Congress rejected the legislation.

Even though the legislation was defeated, President Bush’s Treasury Department went ahead and loaned $17.4 billion in TARP funds to General Motors and Chrysler.

Critics ranging from Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich to the conservative Heritage Foundation criticized Bush for acting unlawfully in doing so.

The TARP law specifically says, “The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.”

The law does not include auto companies under the category of “financial institution.” The law says the following: “The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.”

Dodd, like Hoyer, expressed uncertainty when asked where the president got the authority to further fund the auto industry and oversee its restructuring given that TARP only authorizing federal aid to financial institutions.

“I don’t know whether there is legislative action needed regarding all this,” Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) told CNSNews.com Tuesday. “There may be. I just don’t know enough details of this and obviously we’re going to be talking about it.”

On Monday, President Obama announced certain conditions that General Motors and Chrysler would have to meet to get additional government funds. These included requiring both automakers to produce more “fuel efficient” vehicles, and requiring Chrysler to merge with the Italian auto maker Fiat.

Additionally, the administration “asked” General Motors President Rick Wagoner to resign.

“I wasn’t consulted at all on the process, not that I expected to be necessarily, but as the committee of some jurisdiction on this matter, I kind of expected I might hear something. I’ve been reading about it in the papers basically,” Dodd said.

Dodd also said he had questions about the president’s proposal regarding Chrysler.

“One piece that has me somewhat perplexed is whether or not we are providing funds to Chrysler in order to make their position attractive to Fiat,” Dodd said. “That’s going to raise questions in people’s minds.”

Using TARP money to finance a government-driven restructuring of GM and Chrysler as announced by Obama would not be legal without a congressional authorization, said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

“No, it’s not legal without congressional approval,” Franks told CNSNews.com. “The language is clear. The money is directed toward financial institutions. But that may be the least of our challenge. The president finally seems to realize that bankruptcy may be the best option. The notion that government could specify what vehicles to make is ridiculous.”

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) said he found the treatment of GM President Rick Wagoner troubling.

“It’s my understanding that the CEOs voluntarily agreed to really be the scapegoat here and I think it’s very difficult to say that the president did anything wrong there,” Hatch told CNSNews.com. “But I do not want the federal government dictating who runs corporations in this country. Now there is no question there is a lot of leverage with the federal funds. But it’s a very troubling thing that people think politicians can fire a leader of a company.”

Hatch added he was skeptical about the government’s ability to guarantee warrantees on vehicles.

“It’s tough to guarantee a warrantee if a company is out of business,” Hatch continued. “You can guarantee maybe parts, but ultimately, it is very difficult to do that without getting the government in a difficult position. It’s easy to say things like that. It’s another to do them.”








Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.


Showing 1-10 of 13 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 2 Next Loading...


Jack Kinch(1uncle) at 06:06 PM - April 01, 2009
He doesn't have authority. It's ego. If nobody questions it,so? He can fire anyone. That's really something from a man who never had a real job or ran anything. He has always lived off your taxes-never paid any. He's still living off your taxes and unless people want to pay a lot of money to hear him speak like 'Sick Willie', he'll never pay taxes.

orator at 05:22 PM - April 01, 2009
Franks's only problem is that Nobama didn't give him a few hundred thousand to make his day. What surprises me is Hatch's reaction. I would have thought he would find Nobama's actions more than "troubling". If it had been me I would have been furious and doing all I could to call Mr Nobama to task. Nobama needs someone to knock him off his perch. Right now it seems he thinks he can do no wrong. I suppose that fits when the "Messiah" is acting. What a loon. What a jerk. Come one, somebody with the cojones, grab that jerk by the throat and bring him down to earth.

pascasha at 04:25 PM - April 01, 2009
Obama has no authorization to do this. But King Obama can do whatever he wants. There is no more check-and-balance system in Washington. They are all liberal up there and they would make some retro-active law to cover his butt!

mewp at 02:07 PM - April 01, 2009
Perhaps the sheep are starting to leave the fold as the shepherd is out of line.

shorn1954 at 01:44 PM - April 01, 2009
Man, when are these guys going to get it? They are like sheep being led to the slaughter. Obama has powerful people behind the scenes in very high places. He is somehow able to do anything he wants and is quickly moving toward total control of every aspect of our lives with not so much as a hiccup. Scary times folks!

NoParty at 01:00 PM - April 01, 2009
Don't these Democtats realize yet that they. along with the Republican members of the Congress and Senate, plus the entire population of the US are redundant. Do they seriously think Obama gives a hoot about consulting them or anyone. Silly people.

islanddiva at 12:49 PM - April 01, 2009
Obama's takeover of GM is outrageous and ridiculous! Since when does he have the authority to dictate who a company can hire and fire, reagrdless of how they worded the TARP legislation! The bureaucrats wouldn't take the time to even read their very flawed TARP plan, so it's no coincidence that this deal had to be shoved through as fast as possible and in the dead of night. They authorized AIG bonuses, as those too were "overlooked" & endorsed by the libs, until public outrage shamed them into reversing course. Why not focus on the union bosses and shut them down? They are the biggest drain on resources. Aside from politics, what other industry pays HS dropouts $80/hr, + benefits for life? Until Detroit can cut labor costs, they'll never make it, regardless of what BO & co. dictate or legislate. Thanks to more bureacracy, gov't subsidies, fess and taxes, expect to see US cars selling for 50% more than they are now.

jsamans at 12:33 PM - April 01, 2009
The TARP language also doesn't say anything about recapitalizing banks, with Secretaries Paulson and Geithner have both done. I think that TARP is really just a big pot of money that anyone uses however he or she wants.

jimmr at 12:27 PM - April 01, 2009
What Constitutional authority does Congressman Hoyer cite the gives Congress the right to extend to the President (who has obviously greatly exceeded his constitutional authority)?

Searcher at 12:23 PM - April 01, 2009
The light hasn't come on yet in Congress, but maybe it is starting to flicker a little.