Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
Lets reverse the question then bond, do you think the money was given to California with no rules attached and no ability to oversee or recollect on the money if it was not used for some designated reasons? Honestly I think its a lot more naive to belive that the fed gave them money with no strings attached.
|
Well, there seems to be no readily available, legally-binding contracts that state that as fact. We do know that, ex-post, actions were undertaken to restrict and oversee the funds. Again, if you were to propose that there were restrictions, they were either legally-binding contracts that only the two public parties are aware of, or a promise that holds no legal authority.
Quote:
And as for your second quote, no I'm not talking about the amendment process. That's why its better to have context and reply to the whole post instead of quoting one paragraph. I'm talking about the fact that what Obama is doing is not illegal, and it probably should be. I personally don't think that states or the country in general should be able to take loans that compromises the power structure of the country. But unfortunately, its not illegal. Hasn't been, and probably won't be made illegal any time soon.
As I discussed with strangler, the responceability here is placed squarely on the state's shoulder's because its its the state's job not to compromise its own power. Thus why people rejected government money in the first place.
|
Well, I did come into this discussion a bit late, unfortunately. I'm still not quite sure what you're talking about, but it seems as though these issues are complex constitutional questions that I'm not quite sure any of us are well-versed enough in the law to properly debate.
Sorry if I interrupted the discussion.