Obama wants your freedom!! Its in writing!!

Financial institutions aren't people, and financial institutions have shown repeatedly to routinely engage in illegal, and unethical acts that have undermined our economy.

That being said, I am sure there is a lot of wiggle room for sleazy financial institution lawyers to slither there way out of this at any time anyway.

But unless you are a financial institution, this does not affect you, and it certainly does not take away your freedom, unless you are some financial institution.

Course those mother [snip] should be raked over the coals for what they did to the economy anyway.

reply to post by whatukno

Financial institutions aren't people, and financial institutions have shown repeatedly to routinely engage in illegal, and unethical acts that have undermined our economy.

For a person who is intent on becoming a member of Congress you sure are woefully ignorant of the statutes that Congress has passed. While I am in complete agreement with you that corporations have consistently acted in criminal ways, corporations have been statutorily defined as a "persons" and that definition can be found as early as 1 U.S.C.

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

You are the one who is forever yammering on about how Congress has the authority to pass law, and that all the people can do in regards to this "law" that Congress has passed is vote. Well Wukky, here is your precious legislation posing as law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ah but does it say institutions?

You seem to love to expound on specific word usage and as such the statute that you describe does not say the specific word, "Institution" it is quite specific on what is defined as a person, and among those definitions is NOT the word Institution, so, a financial institution as directed in the OP is NOT a person, and so, should not enjoy the privileges associated with a person.

I do believe that the deregulation of our financial institutions has compromised our economic safety.

Above that, Congress does have the constitutional authority to regulate commerce does it not? And can we agree that financial institutions conduct commerce? Therefore falling under the jurisdiction of Congress's power listed in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution?

reply to post by whatukno


Your silly games of semantics do not change the fact that Congress has defined corporations as being a person. Why you hope to play this silly game is beyond me, and it is likely that I am giving you too much credit in allowing that you are playing a game of semantics. There is always the possibility that you are just being dumb.

Your game of semantics regarding the word "institutions" is irrelevant. As long as corporations are statutorily defined as being a person, then the courts are bound by this legislation to treat corporations with the same regard they would individuals. Your willful ignorance only reveals how ineffective you would be as a member of Congress, and as long as you insist on pretending that 1 U.S.C. has not defined corporations as a person, then there is nothing you will do in Congress to change that. So, all your bluster and fluster, is merely empty rhetoric, and you have no intentions of fighting corporations. You are just a politician running for office.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


While I do enjoy your little inane jabs at the fact that I am trying to run for office in every single post you make towards me, as pointless and derogatory as they always are, it does not change the fact that this legislation is specifically targeting Institutions and not corporations.

It still does not negate the fact that congress does have the constitutional authority to regulate commerce, as shown in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. But I guess to you, financial institutions should enjoy the privilege of your natural law and should be able to destroy the economy at will just to further their own bottom line.

It still does not negate the fact that financial institutions in this country (Like the Federal Reserve) can and do preform unethical and perhaps illegal activities on a routine basis. It still does not negate the fact that the statute that you posted does not specifically state institution as being a person. (even though you have argued that statutes are not law and therefore should always be ignored anyway because they don't fall under your "natural law" definition.)

It still does not negate the fact that the OP is making a MASSIVE leap from financial institution to individual, and is assuming that all people in the United States will somehow fall under this financial regulatory bill.

But please, continue to tell me how awful it is that I am running for congress, please continue to point out your distaste at me trying to do something good for the American people, please continue your futile effort to anger me and belittle every single post I make on this website because you don't agree with my stance.

reply to post by whatukno


To the best of my knowledge Congress has not made any statutory definition of the word "institution". When there is no statute defining a word that requires definition, then we turn to the ordinary meaning of the word.

Institution defined:

An institution can be any type of organized corporation or society. It may be private and designed for the profit of the individuals composing it, or public and nonprofit.

Institution defined:

b : an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character

You are playing a game of semantics Wukky, and it has nothing to do with your pretended outrage at "institutions". You can bet your ass that banking "institutions" will or other financial "institutions" will rely on the definition of person as defined by Congress in order to have the full protection of rights, and this silly game of semantics regarding the usage of the word "institution" will remain moot.

Pardon me if I jump in to reiterate the following

"Financial Regulatory Bill Approved by House Gives Feds Power to Subpoena Any Record from Any Financial Institution Without Establishing Any Probable Cause"

Any record from any financial institution...... Would and individual's personal account within such an institution fall under this category?? Are individual accounts deemed as records of the institution??

Originally posted by jibeho
I don't think you really understand what is involved with a 2000 page piece of legislation that is aimed at overhauling our financial system.

I am not sure you are doing much better.

Like I said earlier their are some decent provisions to further protect consumers but with the good you get the bad. This specific provision that I mention in the OP will open the floodgates and could easily lead to the new advisers poking around in your accounts. The verbiage leaves deliberate possibilities and loopholes.

Let me quote you "will
could
lead to
possibilities and loopholes"

All this might, may, can, will, blah, nonsense is just that. You want the banks to crash our economy by being able to secretly sell crap and nonexistant monies made to fail so that the possibility of seeing how much you spent at target last week never pops up. OK, use cash.

This is being pushed under the guise of helping to protect the average Joe when it really amounts to a power grab and nothing is really going to change. Just more legislation to put more control in to the hands of the govt. The fed is still dumping money on the big banks, they are shutttering small community banks and still refuse to audit Fannie and Freddie or give them the classic stress test. This legislation will all but ensure that small banks across the nation will close forever leaving only the big govt. controlled super banks at the top of the heap.

They've got your healthcare, your finances, student loans and soon your carbon footprint. Not to mention the massive tax hike that is coming at the end of this year when Obama lets all of the Bush credits expire.

You have nothing but paranoid guesses of what may happen in the future as a result of things you are assuming will happen as a result of something you say opens the possibility of leading to possibilities conducive to said fantasy.

Got it. If only more people defending the financial institutions that are killing the USA. Maybe you should send some CEOs a check to help them through this hard time.

I am glad I am not an American citizen,

A president who neglects the rights of the american people
An oil leakage which is allready the biggest in american history
Economy on the virge of a breakdown

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Still all of this is categorized under commerce is it not? Regulating commerce is a function of Congress. The deregulation of these institutions in this country did in fact lead to the downfall of the economy.

Protect them if you want. I believe that's the wrong approach, as we have seen, financial institutions have and will cause real damage to the economy if left unchecked.

Of course, maybe you want them to destroy the economy further? Is that it? Perhaps you have investments with these financial institutions and it helps your bottom line to try and keep them from being regulated at all? That way they can continue to rape the country.

Because it seems clear that you don't even subscribe to the simple constitutional requirement of Congress to regulate commerce, because it flies in the face of your supposed "natural law" doctrine.

So say what you will, I am still of the belief that congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate commerce. Seems to me that an institution that is suspected of committing fraud might find it real easy to "loose" documents in a paper shredder when the SEC comes knocking.

But keep on defending your buddies in the FED, keep on defending your buddies in AIG, I hope your dividends are worth the weakening of the economy in general, because people like you who feel that deregulation is the best policy for the stability of our nation have shown that financial institutions will take advantage of people.

I guess to you, the United States Constitution is a piecemeal document, to be used and ignored at will. It's fine when you are defending things like Natural Law, but to you it should be ignored when things like Article I Section 8 come into play.







[edit on 7/13/2010 by whatukno]

And now the naysayers have somewhat of an understanding why
many continue to say "NO" on the bills DEMOCRATS put for voting.

reply to post by whatukno

Protect them if you want. I believe that's the wrong approach, as we have seen, financial institutions have and will cause real damage to the economy if left unchecked.

It is not at all I who is protecting financial institutions, it is you who are, and doing so by pretending that Congress has not all ready protected these institutions by declaring them people. You have no intentions if elected into Congress of doing what is necessary to repeal this repugnant defining of corporate bodies as a person, and because you have no intentions of doing so, you are undeniably protecting them while you play the politicians game pretending others protect them while you pretend to protect a constituency you have no regard for.





[edit on 13-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by evil incarnate


You really don't get it do you?

This financial overhaul is not reform. It is about the expansion and centralization of power in DC. It is simply based on a bizarre vision that government can foresee future crises and avoid them, despite the fact that a litany of regulators never saw our most recent crisis looming over our heads.

This new legislation just creates a bevy of new councils, agencies, and bureaucracies that give birth to endless channels for DC insiders to further infiltrate the system in which they thrive. This is just like Obamacare.

This new law would also give unprecedented power to the FDIC. The FDIC would be authorized to seize risky financial institutions if a council of regulators, chaired by Geithner, believes a company is in danger of default and poses a risk. Once a company is seized, the FDIC oversees the entire process including restructuring the order in which creditor are paid. So, you have the FDIC now serving as creditor, manager, judge and jury. Sounds a little crazy eh??

Conflict of interest perhaps???

Keep in mind that nothing in the proposed legislation does anything to oversee and reform Freddie and Fannie. Do you know that they were also at the root of the nations housing disaster? They were fully enabled by congress and continue to milk the taxpayers to the tune of $145 billion and counting.

Ask yourself why this is being pushed so quickly through the ranks of congress before the November Midterms. The average person will only see the bullet points and will never realize the true content.

This IS a power grab and this WILL infringe on our rights. Pardon me for ever saying COULD. I guess that represents what little is left of my optimism.

edit for clarity

[edit on 13-7-2010 by jibeho]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by jibeho]

What also irritates me is the gross misrepresentation of the OP that somehow this financial regulatory bill regulating financial institutions somehow makes the giant leap from these financial institutions to people.

What drives me nuts is the disinformation that constantly gets spewed out and gobbled up by the masses here on this site because of their hatred for Obama.

CLUE IN PEOPLE. Just because you hate the POTUS, doesn't mean that everything that comes out of Congress is bad. (remember, two separate branches of government)

Blind hatred is as stupid as blind loyalty.

reply to post by whatukno


Please answer the following question from my earlier post...

Would and individual's personal account within such an institution fall under this category?? Are individual accounts deemed as records of the institution??

The legislation specifies any and all records

reply to post by jibeho


From my understanding those records are still protected under the 4th Amendment. Even in the OP it still states that these records have to be subpoenaed.

So unless you can find specifically in this bill where it says that individual account holders are subject under this bill, then it's still a wild accusation that financial institution records somehow implies that individual account holders records will be included.

I believe that this is baseless fear-mongering as continuously shown by the Right to try and demonize anything that comes from this Congress. The right would love nothing more than to continue to deregulate commerce in the attempt to make sure that their rich billionaire buddies can use risky financial instruments to make themselves boatloads of cash while putting ordinary individuals in the poor house.

I am not sure why anyone would want to defend the same financial institutions that tanked our economy, or would want to strip congress of their constitutional obligation to regulate commerce, but it seems to me that it's a political move by the right to undermine anything done by the left, even when the left is actually trying to do something that should have been done a long time ago.






[edit on 7/13/2010 by whatukno]

Does it violate the constitution?

reply to post by jibeho


FOX News? Yes, let's trust the mouthpiece of the GOP to tell us what is real and what isn't.

I asked for specific wordage in the bill. Not what FOX News has to say about it.

reply to post by whatukno


I trust Napolitano's expertise regarding the constitution.

Judge Napolitano has written three books: Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws; a New York Times bestseller, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land; and A Nation of Sheep. His writings have also been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The New York Sun, The Baltimore Sun, The (New London) Day, The Seton Hall Law Review, The New Jersey Law Journal and The Newark Star-Ledger. He lectures nationally on the constitution and human freedom.

www.judgenap.com...

Under section 1022 of this bill, the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would collect any information it chooses from businesses and consumers including personal characteristics and financial information.

Please read

(4) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION- In conducting research on the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services, the Bureau shall have the authority to gather information from time to time regarding the organization, business conduct, markets, and activities of persons operating in consumer financial services markets. In order to gather such information, the Bureau may--
(A) gather and compile information from examination reports concerning covered persons or service providers, assessment of consumer complaints, surveys, and interviews of covered persons and consumers, and review of available databases;
(B) require persons to file with the Bureau, under oath or otherwise, in such form and within such reasonable period of time as the Bureau may prescribe, by rule or order, annual or special reports, or answers in writing to specific questions, furnishing such information as the Bureau may require; andomments
(C) make public such information obtained by the Bureau under this section, as is in the public interest in reports or otherwise in the manner best suited for public information and use.

(e) Information Gathering- In conducting any monitoring or assessment required by this section, the Bureau may gather information through a variety of methods, including by conducting surveys or interviews of consumers.

www.opencongress.org...

So, to reiterate:

Individuals/persons could be required to provide the new agency with written answers--under oath--to any question posed by the bureau regarding their personal financial information.

This information along with all other information collected by federal financial regulators can be used by the Office of Financial Research to monitor the entire financial system for so-called systemic risk.




[edit on 13-7-2010 by jibeho]

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by jibeho

 

Although I do believe Obama wants our freedom and its in writing lots of places, I do think you're stretching this one a bit. The constitution doesn't protection corporations or companies but private citizens.

But, in your opening paragraphs, you quote that the final version of this bill is unconstitutional which is clearly is not.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Have you read it? I'll link it here for you: United States Constitution . This bill, as written, is not unconstitutional.

I know it's not a popular opinion here at ATS but it's reality. There are PLENTY of unconstitutional things that the Obama Administration has done... let's focus on the real ones.

You are confused

This crew is not interested in accuracy, facts or truth. That lonely star you see on your post is from me, but expect no kudos from the usual suspects for pointing out the truth....the truth has no place in the frothing at the mouth Obama-haters agenda.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by maybereal11]