Thursday afternoon, I interviewed Rep. Michele Bachmann about H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. One of the first points Rep. Bachmann made was that it centered too much power in the executive branch.
According to the legislation’s language in Section 1101, the “Council and the Board are authorized to receive, and may request the production of, any data or information from members of the Council, as necessary (1) to monitor the financial services market place to identify potential threats to the stability of the United States financial system.” The “Council and Board” are allowed to demand information from financial instituions without getting a search warrant.
When I asked whether this might constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Rep. Bachmann said that it might indeed constitute a violation of a company’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Rep. Bachmann also pointed out that this legislation would codify into law a bailout clause. She pointed me towards a document that the House GOP leadership put together titled “10 Reasons to Oppose H.R. 4173.” That document quotes Rep. Brad Sherman, (D-Calif.), as saying this:
The bill establishes a permanent bailout authority or, as Rep. Brad Sherman (DCA) described it, “TARP on steroids.”
In other words, this legislation authorizes the president to spend money without going through the appropriations phase. That means that it eliminates Congress from debating the merits of whether the money should be spent. That should bother people immensely considering how irresponsible this administration is with its spending.
Rep. Bachmann said that this bill worries her more than any other bill she’s fought against, “including the national energy tax and health care.” That statement stunned me more than a little because I’ve seen how hard Rep. Bachmann has fought against the national energy tax and against Pelosicare.
The reason for Rep. Bachmann’s worries are legitimate. She’s worried about how much authority this legislation puts into the executive branch’s hands. She said she’s also worried about foundational constitutional principles that aren’t being taken into consideration. In addition to the possible Fourth Amendment issues, the bill also ignores the principle of checks and balances. Unquestionably, that’s part of the foundation that our Constitution is built on.
Despite all the worries Rep. Bachmann has about H.R. 4173, she remains encouraged that people are waking up to the threat posed by this administration’s trampling of the Constitution.
Last weekend, Rep. Bachmann held her annual Christmas Party here in St. Cloud. During her brief presentation, she spoke about how encouraged she was by what she called the formation of “a liberty coalition.” By that, Rep. Bachmann said that people of all political stripes are waking up to the fact that it isn’t ok to write laws that ignore the Constitution’s foundational principles. She noted that people of all political stripes don’t want too much power given to the executive branch.
As a result of this administration’s overreach, people are understanding why we need to adhere to the wisdom of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
On another note, Rep. Bachmann said that the administration is selling the health care legislation by saying that they have to pass the bill or else their base will abandon them, which will lead to their defeat. (It’s important that I make clear that the reference to the elections was done in the context that that’s how Democrats were selling health care. At no point did we talk election strategy or using the issue for political advantage.)
I interjected into the conversation that they’re doomed if they pass this bill because independents are breaking against Democrats because they’re spending too much and because people are rejecting the Democrats’ health care legislation by wide margins:
Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that Americans don’t like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday. A majority, 57 percent, oppose the health care reform legislation being considered right now. About a third of Americans, 34 percent, favor the reforms.
I consider this to be proof that people nationwide are worried about the level of spending that’s happening and their worries about the Democrats’ health care legislation.
Check back to this blog next week for a new series that I’m researching. The series will be about H.R. 4173, going through it section-by-section to provide you with the specific provisions to the bill that either concentrate too much authority in the executive branch or that ignore constitutional protections or that don’t have the proper checks and balances codified into the legislation. (HINT: I just started and I’ve already found more provisions that I find troublesome.)
Technorati: Interview, Michele Bachmann, Republicans, Reforms, Health Care, Wall Street, Fourth Amendment, Constitution, Executive Branch, TARP On Steroids, Brad Sherman, Democrats
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Entries RSS2 Feed
Comments RSS2 Feed
Proud C.C. Contributing Editor
[...] Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog [...]
Pingback by California Conservative » Blog Archive » Michele Bachmann Interview Notes • 11Dec2009 @ 4:38 am
So you’re saying operating a financial institution, operation, whatever is a right and not a privilege where conditions on the privilege can be imposed?
Which side of the road do you drive on, your license does not permit you to choose. You follow the rules of the road.
It’s a license to operate prudently, with other peoples’ money. Not a license to steal.
That idea that “Fourth Amendment” rights against regulation exist, is a total crock.
Comment by eric z • 11Dec2009 @ 8:25 am
Who do you suppose Bachmann is taking marching orders from, on this hummer? I’d guess there could be a quid pro quo on past [and expected future] campaign money, for one who takes the “right” position on matters before the committee.
Just a thought.
If you operate a mine, you have to follow mining law.
If you operate a trucking firm you have to know state and federal rules and regulations.
If you run a septic tank pumping operation, you cannot go to the local stream and discharge your pumper truck.
If you run deals with other peoples’ money, you face accountability constraints; and the recent past has proven that if the accountability standards are too lax; hell breaks loose.
AIG. Remember how there was no way to make them fund the promises they made to the rest of Wall Street?
This Fourth Amendment stuff is more batty Bachmannalia. What’s between that woman’s ears; codfish stew or something?
Comment by eric z • 11Dec2009 @ 8:31 am
Eric, I’m ashamed that you’ve taken that position. To rummage through a company’s books on a whim is unconstitutional. Just because there is a law on the books that says it’s ok doesn’t mean the Constitution permits it.
Legislation doesn’t trump the Constitution. PERIOD.
Comment by Gary Gross • 11Dec2009 @ 10:26 am
BTW, your analogies about trucking companies, septic tank companies, etc., are irrelevant to this arugment because they don’t violate any constitutional protections.
What a crackpot argument!!! Shame on you.
Comment by Gary Gross • 11Dec2009 @ 10:28 am
I don’t see the Fourth Amendment connection your talking about. If one is on the Council, it is talking about getting records from the Council members, apparently voluntarily, to prevent financial meltdown. Don’t want to share information? Then don’t join the Council.
Comment by John Wesley Hall • 11Dec2009 @ 10:59 am
The major financial institutions don’t have the option of joining the Council or not. That’s why your claim of voluntary isn’t valid. It’s voluntary at gunpoint.
Comment by Gary Gross • 11Dec2009 @ 11:03 am
Here is the URL on Thomas, for the bill for people who would want to read what the bill says before or in parallel to what you say about it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4173:
You don’t like the FDIC? It’s an industry financed pool for working out failed institution situations to protect bank depositors to quell runs on banks, bank panics.
I question how they operate and the need for sunshine on who gets to bone pick on the failed operations, and would like to see Ron Paul push to audit FDIC also, on a regular basis - congressional oversight - as with the Fed.
But to dislike putting buffers into place against the worse damage of business cycles, why not?
And if you say it is all bad, what answer do you have to how things like the final year of the Bush-Cheney term and the Paulson raid on the Treasury and Fed, that kind of manipulation; the AIG bailout, do you say keep on track, it got us there once and can do it again, or do you reform things?
If reform and you dislike what’s been passed by the House, what’s your better idea?
But start with the legislation you are attacking, give the link. It’s fundamental to do that.
Comment by eric z • 12Dec2009 @ 6:58 am
Comment 4 - What’s your beef Gary, we are already there.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2009/12/13/the-makings-of-a-police-state-part-iv/#more-1155
They already can see business records, ““relevant to an investigation” under Section 215 of the so called “Patriot Act.” Between the dotted lines, a quote of a quote from there:
………………..
Anticipating that the debate over reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act will soon come to the Senate floor, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday asked Attorney General Eric Holder to declassify key information about how the law’s “business records provision” has been used. They last sent a classified letter in June asking for the same thing, but claim they’ve received no response.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to meet to obtain personal information from banks, hospitals, libraries, retail stores and other institutions. Previously, the government had to show that it had evidence that the person whose records it sought was a terrorist or spy. With passage of the Patriot Act, that standard was lowered to permit the government to collect any records it considered “relevant to an investigation.”
Wyden, Feingold and Durbin have been arguing that the relevance standard is far too broad and violates the privacy rights of ordinary law-abiding Americans. But they also claim that the government is withholding key information from Congress that would allow lawmakers to make an informed judgment about the issue. Although it’s not clear exactly what information they’re talking about, since even a description of the information is classified, it would seem to be information about how the government has used the business records provision, and what evidence it has obtained by its use.
………………..
That item ended:
“I can go on and fill page after page with facts, cases, and examples of our government’s current and worsening state when it comes to transparency, thus to its degree of accountability to we the people. However, I think you get the picture and the picture is crystal clear. Therefore I expect many of you feel the outrage building up, and the desire to bring about real changes bubbling inside you. Because if these points don’t sound outrageous and if they don’t make the state of our liberties look dire and pathetic, then we are all in deep trouble. If we accept secret budgets, if we say ‘okay’ to secret courts, if we shrug off secret hearings and reports, if we unquestioningly pay for secret operations, if we assume indifference to a government operating and hidden in pure secrecy…then we deserve to be a nation of liberty-less servants serving the masters in a secret government, and live in denial of having become inhabitants of a true police state.”
Try sometime, Gary, to get info from the government via FOIA. It’s like pulling hen’s teeth.
Comment by eric z. • 16Dec2009 @ 7:09 pm