Dem Sen. Ben Nelson: Obama May Not Have Constitutional Authority, But He Has Moral Authority
This “moral authority trumps the rule of law” mindset launched the world’s worst dictators from Hitler to Mao…
“Does President Obama, in your mind, have the constitutional authority to have BP surrender the stockholders’ money without due process of law
9 comments:
Pastorius,
I agree with you. I wonder if Ben Nelson has any idea what the danger of that position is? To even consider that the president's moral authority should trump the constitution is dangerous.
There's a reason why our President doesn't have "absolute power". But, having so many in Congress that would do his bidding, he very nearly does.
No, the President does not have the constitutional authority to take BP's money without due process.
But, he can certainly recommend that we cease to allow them to do business here. I'm not sure if he can make that decision, on his own, though.
I heard on a news program (I don't remember which one) that 40% of BP's stockholders are here, in America.
The sad thing is, BP AGREED TO IT.
Obama did not make any overt threats.
I guess we could speculate about what might have happened behind closed doors, but one would assume the people running BP, as sophisticated businessmen, would be above being the subjects of racketeering-type threats, right?
Maybe.
Nelson is right.
The president must execute the moral force of ethical behavior, and use that for the public good (whatever the hell that is).
The public good is to PRESERVE THE WAY OF LIFE of the people of the gulf nothing more or less.
In this case BP SHOULD HAVE created a fund LONG BEFORE, the moment it became obvious the top kill idea wouldn;t work and the months of oil gushing were going to kill the way of lives of hundreds of thousands of americans, and impair the livelihood of millions.
In reality the costs of this WILL BANKRUPT BP, but that is not the best answer.
Saying BP ought to create a fund, and in the next sentence saying this will likely bankrupt BP is like saying, we ought to eat oranges, cuz apples taste good.
If BP is going bankrupt, then what you are saying is the people in the gulf have the first right to BP's money before any other creditor.
There's got to be a lot of guns behind that statement, because there isn't any law behind it.
No BP could have shorted the prez out of this, instead of waiting to be put in a spot as the all-evil
They have a narrow path to tread here, as it appears (if the news we see is correct) that they are negligent in 11 deaths, more injuries, and a manifestly unimaginable amount of damage (some AZ eco group sued them friday for another 11-19 million on behalf on the environment)
It's my judgment that the only shot they had was get out front and be seen as striving to do right.
Instead they are going to get creamed. The courts are going to do the damage. The fines will be bullshit compared to the what the courts are going to end up awarding.
It's not the 20 billion fund which will kill BP, it will be the damages and pain and suffering.
After the first batch of awards come in (whenever that is), they will fold like Dow Corning
Gotcha.
Yes, BP must be made to pay, and pay dearly, because we know that we are entitled to have a world where no accidents happen.
I don't trust the government to exercise moral authority. Why? Because the definition of "moral" has a way of changing as morality itself is subjective (in a secular society).
Always On Watch,
Its not a matter of a secular vs. a religious society. Regardless, it is not a good idea to invest too much moral authority in the government. Governments have always, and will always be run by fallible men, and power, will always at least have the potential to corrupt them. Not to mention the fact that politicians will always lie to get elected, and try to pay off constituents. Theocracies can be at least as bad as any secular totalitarian dictatorship.
Post a Comment