It was bound to happen...

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

It is my opinion that if the Union had a contract which was violated by the state of California, then they damn well should have the money brought back to them. A contract is a contract and thats some serious bullshit if they can just simply violate that contract with no repurcussions.

Tell that to Chrysler's stakeholders...

Beyond that, it is not the in the Executive branch's power to enforce contracts. That falls with the judicial branch. Something tells me that if the state of California really couldn't break the union contracts, this federal interference wouldn't have been necessary. The union could have simply taken the case to court and the action would have been stayed until trial if they had a case.

But that is exactly what we're talking about here: The executive brach's assumption of powers that they do not have nor are entitled to.

Man, out schools need to do WAY better job of teaching civics...

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

But that is exactly what we're talking about here: The executive brach's assumption of powers that they do not have nor are entitled to..

It was within the federal goverments powers when california compromised their own by accepting money that had a purpose behind it. Shall we circle back to that again?

For Bond and Strangler: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...imu/?uniontrib

Just posting a site where the focus isn't on the money being taken back, but on the fact that california violated the terms of the stimulus package. I've found the terms for multiple states, but when I search california its cluttered with news stories about how california violated it and there's not many actual government sites listed.

However, the fact that there is terms for it means that there are rules attached to the money. Rules that can be broken, and that could lead to the fed taking action. The state still has the full power here, its just that they agreed to taking the money and violated the terms of the reasoning behind them taking the money. And the reason the state took the money is because the state made a ton of stupid decisions in the past and got to the point where they needed help.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

However, the fact that there is terms for it means that there are rules attached to the money. Rules that can be broken, and that could lead to the fed taking action.

And you just described how the stimulus money was used to coerce a state into doing things they wouldn't do otherwise. Do what we say, or don't get billions in financial aid you desperately need. It's essentially reverse extortion. No matter how many times you repeat what happened, it doesn't change the fact that the executive branch has usurped power from both the states and judicial branch.

I posted only to clarify a point about executive powerrs related to judicial powers, not to rehash the same tired arguments.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

And you just described how the stimulus money was used to coerce a state into doing things they wouldn't do otherwise. Do what we say, or don't get billions in financial aid you desperately need. It's essentially reverse extortion. No matter how many times you repeat what happened, it doesn't change the fact that the executive branch has usurped power from both the states and judicial branch.

Ask yourself this, what role is the federal government supposed to play when its a national economic emergency? The Fed is just doing its job to help make sure things get better and the same mistakes aren't made, it was the state's failures that lead them to taking the money. And its not like the fed added new rules to it, THEY ENFORCED RULES THAT THE STATE AGREED TO BEFOREHAND. Which is what you don't seem to get.

Am I extorting the state when I loan them money to build highways with? And if they use the money for something different, and agreed that those are the terms, am I really guilty if I take the money back (and this is part of the pre written agreement)? The answer is no.

[Professor S]

I expect the federal government to follow the intent and rule of law they promised to uphold when taking office. If th federal government feels it needs to help with the economy the action taken must be within it's bounds. We can expect no less.

Why are we still arguing this? We've repeated ourselves at least 4 times. Do you think restating the same argument again is going to change anything? Is using all caps and bold facing it make it more sensible? How about one more time? Is it on the fifth time that suddenly reality gives way to our version of it?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I expect the federal government to follow the intent and rule of law they promised to uphold when taking office. If th federal government feels it needs to help with the economy the action taken must be within it's bounds. We can expect no less.

What law did they break? You've not given any example even though I've asked for it multiple times.. And I even put up links siting the constitution and a previous bail outs which shows that its supported by law.

The problem is you have no arguement, other then how you feel the government should be. Granted I agree with some of your 'feelings' on the subject, but the fed is not factually stepping out of bounds. The state had the freedom to turn the money down, and this is not even close to the first stimulus package or bail out to affect a state spending plan.

Why are we still arguing this? We've repeated ourselves at least 4 times. Do you think restating the same argument again is going to change anything? Is using all caps and bold facing it make it more sensible? How about one more time? Is it on the fifth time that suddenly reality gives way to our version of it?

I'm not the one who claimed I'd stop argueig, you were, yet you make post after post after post. If you think its leading nowhere, then quietly back out. I've done it before, and you should probably start today. But if you want to continue to keep posting, then continue to keep expecting replies from me.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

What law did they break? You've not given any example even though I've asked for it multiple times.. And I even put up links siting the constitution and a previous bail outs which shows that its supported by law.

The terms of the previous bailout were disclosed at the time the money as appropriated. That was not the case with the stimulus money (hell, not even the congresmen who voted on it read the damned thing), or at least we don't know what the terms were since there is nothing to verify either argument, which I find fascinating.

As for naming a specific law, I'll repeat myself one last time, and I'll bold and cap it so maybe you'll understand: THATS NOT HOW THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS WORKS. A case must be made and then tried. Then we'll know for sure. Until then everything we've argued is strictly opinion, regardess of how often you repeat yourself.

In fact, if there is ONE TRUTH that can be taken from this entire discussion, it is that everything we have discussed is purely opinion untl a court of law decides otherwise.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by TheGame

It was within the federal goverments powers when california compromised their own by accepting money that had a purpose behind it. Shall we circle back to that again?

For Bond and Strangler: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...imu/?uniontrib

Just posting a site where the focus isn't on the money being taken back, but on the fact that california violated the terms of the stimulus package. I've found the terms for multiple states, but when I search california its cluttered with news stories about how california violated it and there's not many actual government sites listed.

However, the fact that there is terms for it means that there are rules attached to the money. Rules that can be broken, and that could lead to the fed taking action. The state still has the full power here, its just that they agreed to taking the money and violated the terms of the reasoning behind them taking the money. And the reason the state took the money is because the state made a ton of stupid decisions in the past and got to the point where they needed help.

Have you read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? I'm confused as to why you are going to third party sources to prove what is in the act instead of going to the act directly.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Bond

Have you read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? I'm confused as to why you are going to third party sources to prove what is in the act instead of going to the act directly.

This is because the terms are seperate depending on which state you're in, and to quote myself.

I've found the terms for multiple states, but when I search california its cluttered with news stories about how california violated it and there's not many actual government sites listed.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by TheGame

This is because the terms are seperate depending on which state you're in, and to quote myself.

I see... well, with no legally-binding contract to view, this discussion seems to be hard to have, other than a he said, she said affair.