1. BP is responsible for the gulf oil problem. No doubt.
2. The Constitution has something to say about wrongs and payment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
3. President Obama has demanded an advance payment of $20B from British Petroleum to compensate the injured for their losses.
4. There has been no court case, no legislation, nothing resembling due process and the rule of law in this situation. BP has been penalized without prosecution.
This is a shakedown. But it is much more. This amounts to an unconstitutional control of a company based in another nation.
Of course he has his apologists. Just as Barney Frank admitted that the nationalization of health care initiative did not consider jurisdiction, so also those defenders and protectors of political violence are also defenders of bypassing law. Kos & C&L. And the Jew-hating Arianna Huffington.
This is the thuggery of a nouveau communist who demands what he wants from private corporations. He stated his intentions to interfere directly into the BP’s retention procedures. He already hires and fires at will in the US. What will happen if churches, and Christiansm in general speak out against this radical behavior? Will he fine us? Will he come after our churches? Audit our taxes? What?
Or shall we just keep quiet?
June 20th, 2010 | 5:43 pm | #1
I said it before and I will say it again, these Democrats are Totalitarian pure and simple. They want to control every aspect of our lives and use some cloudy and ill defined term like the “common good” to justify it. 2010 could be a watershed election for America and I think Christians could start suffering real persecution of Obama’s radical agenda is not stopped.
June 20th, 2010 | 6:18 pm | #2
Todd,
It is oh, so easy to become alarmist (“beckish” as I have been accused) and see the end. But as one of faith in the Lord I see that this is not the end, but an opportunity to minister along the way.
June 20th, 2010 | 9:21 pm | #3
As Christians, of course, I think we should be very concerned about the decline of rule of law here.
However, I don’t think the mission of the church as an institution extends to condemning a politician’s extralegal demands on an oil company. So, I have to say that I don’t see how Christians are particularly threatened by our politicians’ disregard for the rule of law—I think it’s something that should worry everyone in America.
June 21st, 2010 | 5:26 am | #4
Stephen,
We can have a prophetic voice to speak to crime in high places and also to note the historic response of a ruler in that regard.
June 21st, 2010 | 9:01 am | #5
BP doesn’t have to give a dime… yet, but they are smart if they do. Is it going to cost them more that 20 billion? I think so. It is only a shakedown if BP agrees to it ANd if there is any question that they should not have have to pay it (or pay that much). I have trouble feeling sorry for BP at this moment.
June 21st, 2010 | 9:17 am | #6
[...] they came for the … who will be [...]
June 21st, 2010 | 9:19 am | #7
[...] they came for the … who will be [...]
June 21st, 2010 | 11:34 am | #8
I suppose it’s too much to ask that people who write things like the above post actually be aware that there’s a difference between civil and criminal law? I’m not even going to bother to note that setting up an escrow account to be run by an independent agent you agree on is nowhere near paying a fine to the gov’t or a criminal penalty. OK I will note that just for the sake of it.
We could even get into the question of whether BP is a ‘person’ or not but the level of ignorance demonstrated so far leaves no reason to even go to that advanced level yet.
June 21st, 2010 | 7:06 pm | #9
Hey, Boonton. Long time no chat.
Do you find anything approaching common civil litigation in such a demand by the current administration and congress? I don’t think it is only I who have failed to draw the necessary lines.
June 21st, 2010 | 9:45 pm | #10
Boonton, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear since 1844 that corporations do count as persons. Of course, not all constitutional rights of persons apply to corporations. The 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate does not apply to corporations, who can be compelled to turn over documents. But 5th Amendment due process rights do apply to corporations, since 1893 in Noble v. Union River Logging.
As for criminal vs. civil, the only mention of criminal issues is with the previous clauses. The deprivation of property clause does not qualify itself in a way that restricts it to criminal cases. If the government takes away my life, liberty, or property for any reason, whether in a criminal trial or otherwise, it has to go through due process of law. Even on the most limited view of of what due process of law requires, there at least has to be a passage of laws by Congress subject to judicial review. The executive branch can’t just do it without a law allowing it that can be challenged in court. Obama himself certainly doesn’t limit himself to a minimalist view of due process, either.
June 22nd, 2010 | 9:44 am | #11
Collin
Do you find anything approaching common civil litigation in such a demand by the current administration and congress?
Actually yes. Your neighbor’s son is playing baseball. Hit breaks your window. YOu go over and demand $100 to replace the glass. Most civil claims are settled *outside* of civil litigation. In fact, unlike criminal law, the civil system almost begs people to try to settle their claims without using the courts. For many small claims, you will probably be required to sit with a mediator before you can even get in front of a judge.*
* Of course the criminal system does encourage prosecutors and defendants to ‘make deals’ rather than go to trial. But unlike the civil system such deals have to be presented to the judge who ratifies them or rejects them.
Jeremy
As for criminal vs. civil, the only mention of criminal issues is with the previous clauses. The deprivation of property clause does not qualify itself in a way that restricts it to criminal cases. If the government takes away my life, liberty, or property for any reason, whether in a criminal trial or otherwise, it has to go through due process of law.
Except no deprivation of property has taken place. BP has set up an escrow account. It controls the money and it more or less chooses the person who will manage the account. If it feels the person is mismanaging the account it can petition a court to have him removed (or even do it without petitioning a court depending on how they write up the account)
It has almost certainly done this because its a win-win for both sides. For the gov’t claiments will get compensated faster than if BP made each and every person sue and wait twenty years to collect 10% after fighting them tooth and nail. For BP, it begins to restore trust by taking direct control away from money they are almost certainly going to loose anyway. What the fund can do, though, is deny claims that are dubious. BP, having no credibility at this point, can’t personally deny claims without looking like an even bigger jerk of a company. With an escrow manager who is agreed upon as unbiased and independent, BP justify denied claims on the grounds that he made the call instead of them.
This sort of thing is why people utilize things like escrow accounts.
The executive branch can’t just do it without a law allowing it that can be challenged in court. Obama himself certainly doesn’t limit himself to a minimalist view of due process, either.
Liability laws already exist just as they exist in the case of your kid breaking my window. Say you pay me $100 for the window but then I turn around and sue you anyway claiming that the baseball broke the $100 window and also a $1000 vase. I would win $900. The $100 you paid before anyone went to court wasn’t acting ‘outside the law’ and certainly wasn’t ‘making up law’. Likewise with the escrow if claims come in under $20B (very unlikely), BP gets the change back. If claims come in over and BP refuses to fund additional payouts lawsuits will proceed and BP will pay the difference of judgements minus payments they already made.
In terms of Presidential Power this is all purely bully pulpet. Hardly on a par with, say, threatening to not renew broadcast licenses for supposedly biased news reproting (Nixon), demanding that steel companies lower prices (JFK) or proposing that striking workers be drafted into the army so they could be ordered to stop their strike (Truman). Obama didn’t order BP to do this but his approval of it allows them to partially relieve a massive PR headache.
Of course there is a criminal angle to this. From what I understand the fines for oil spills are based on the amount leaked (which possibly explains why BP has been lowballing the estimates and frustrating attempts to get an accurate estimate of how much oil is coming out) and they go up if gross negligence was involved (which it certainly seems here). Additionally you might also have obstruction of justice and quite possibley manslaughter (I believe one of the three companies working with this rig was so spooked with what BP was trying to pull off they ordered their men to evaculate before the explosion). A good faith effort to compensate victims is legitimate for law enforcement to consider when considering what criminal charges to file on someone or something and what penalties to seek.
June 22nd, 2010 | 12:14 pm | #12
Out-of-court settlement … perhaps.
Obama didn’t order BP to do this
Are you sure that there was absolutely no call to do this or something similar? After all, Obama does have a history of illegal corporate interference.
June 22nd, 2010 | 12:58 pm | #13
I have to be sure of what? Obama’s innocence or do you have to be sure of Obama’s guilt? Last I heard it was the obligation of the accusor to support his charge. Sounds like you failed here so you’ll fall back on previous charges (that probably also failed).
Out-of-court settlement … perhaps.
Not really sure what you meant by this phrase….but yea the escrow accountis basically a type of out of course settlement and on the civil side out of court settlements are neither rare or ‘outside the law’. They are in fact the first preference of the law.
June 22nd, 2010 | 1:47 pm | #14
Ohhhh being that this blog has already mangled the distinction between civil and criminal law, between paying fines to the government and setting up an escrow account….it’s amusing to talk about Obama having ” a history of illegal corporate interference”. Perhaps you care to cite the specific laws Obama broke?
June 22nd, 2010 | 5:08 pm | #15
it’s amusing to talk about Obama having ” a history of illegal corporate interference”. Perhaps you care to cite the specific laws Obama broke?
That’s easy. I’ve some friends who can tell you about their retirement, partly invested in GM, taken from them (confiscated without due process) and handed to the UAW. Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment? That’s illegal. Period.
June 22nd, 2010 | 9:14 pm | #16
I’ve some friends who can tell you about their retirement, partly invested in GM, taken from them (confiscated without due process) and handed to the UAW.
You mean they were stockholders. Hmmmm, you are aware of what bankruptcy does to shareholders? Basically a company goes bankrupt its shareholders are wiped out and its debt holders become the new shareholders. Now the UAW cut a good deal with GM. They didn’t trust them to manage the pension fund to pay for health care benefits so they got GM to give them a few billion and the UAW would manage the fund themselves. That was pretty smart….unfortunately they invested a lot of the loot in loans to GM. Another big lender to GM was the Federal Gov’t. That’s bankruptcy, the bigger creditors swamp the smaller ones and the stockholders aren’t at the bottom of the food chain, they are at the bottom of the toilet.
Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment? That’s illegal. Period.
I hope your friends don’t invest the remainder if their funds in your skills as a lawyer.
June 23rd, 2010 | 6:06 am | #17
Boonton, it’s still true that the Supreme Court has taken corporations to be persons in the relevant sense for the clause Collin is talking about, and it’s still true that there’s nothing in that clause that indicates a restriction to criminal law. I’m not sure how anything you said in response to me changes those two things that I thought (and still think) your initial reply got wrong.
June 23rd, 2010 | 7:47 am | #18
Jeremy,
I agree the question of whether a corporation is a person under the law is settled. However everything else I said demolishes your argument. There is no criminal conviction or punishment here. There is no taking as BP isn’t even giving up control of the money.
Your entire argument rests on the premise that saying a company should do something is the same as forcing them to do it…..that the mayor your town saying you should compensate your neighbor for the broken window is the same as him having the police chief take you into the basement, hold a gun to you rhead and perform a mock execution.
June 28th, 2010 | 10:38 am | #19
Boonton, I never spent any time looking at the further issues involved that you discussed. I just corrected two small points.
1. You said this is civil and not criminal law and so due process for takings doesn’t apply. But due process does apply to civil law. So that argument is unsound, whether there are other reasons to resist Collin’s argument or not.
2. You said corporations aren’t persons, but the Supreme Court has long taken them to be persons in certain contexts, so that argument also is unsound if we go by actual Supreme Court precedents, whether there are other reasons to resist Collin’s argument or not.
Now I’m not sure why correcting those two small points amounts to endorsing all the rest of the things you’re arguing against or justifies you in attributing to me the entire argument you’re resisting, since I never commented on that argument. I commented on what you said. You made two false claims, and I explained why they’re false in a way that indicated no further views on any of those other questions.
I’ve spent no time even thinking about the other issues here, never mind commenting on them, so I simply have no view on them. I could look into it and end up concluding that you’re right, or I might find some reasons to think otherwise. I have no idea. As it is, I didn’t look carefully enough to have any views on the matter. Yet you still insist on telling me that some argument I’ve never given is wrong, and thus some case I’ve never made is demolished.
June 28th, 2010 | 11:52 am | #20
Blue Collar Todd: “I said it before and I will say it again, these Democrats are Totalitarian pure and simple. They want to control every aspect of our lives and use some cloudy and ill defined term like the “common good” to justify it. 2010 could be a watershed election for America and I think Christians could start suffering real persecution of Obama’s radical agenda is not stopped.”
Totalitarian Democrats.
Is that an oxymoron or a redundancy?
June 28th, 2010 | 1:11 pm | #21
Collin Brendermuehl: “This is the thuggery of a nouveau communist who demands what he wants from private corporations. He stated his intentions to interfere directly into the BP’s retention procedures. He already hires and fires at will in the US. What will happen if churches, and Christiansm in general speak out against this radical behavior? Will he fine us? Will he come after our churches? Audit our taxes? What?
Or shall we just keep quiet?”
Can you imagine the witness of churches and Christians (via “Christianism in general”) speaking out against the radical behavior of Obama and his staunch supporters and enablers?
What would it do to the witness of the Gospel and to the witness of Jesus Christ? Would these churches and Christians increase the receptivity to the Gospel and to Jesus Christ if they were to speak out against Obama’s radical behavior? Or would they decrease it?
June 28th, 2010 | 3:09 pm | #22
Hi Collin, Blue Collar Todd,
What do you think of the following: Christian Legal Society Loses 5-4 in Major Supreme Court?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact