• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AIG: Thank You America, But We May Sue You

The government can force a sale. It is called imminent domain.

Which is no where to be found in the constitution. You can look if you want.

The government did not decree that GM sell stocks to Uncle Sam or go bankrupt. Market forces and dunderheaded management mistakes did that.

The government made it part of the deal and therefore it is their actions that made it so.
 
Yes. Without a choice to accept their compensation they are just getting whatever they desire from me by throwing cash in my direction regardless if I want to sell or not.
It was not a sale of the stock, that is not how bankruptcy works. The old shares become worthless because there is no net value to what they hold. Those shares were NOT sold to the government. A new entity was created (in which the US Fed government was a part [temporary] investor) which bought assets from the old GM as a matter of settling accounts of the old GM with its creditors [to any extent they could].

If you have a problem with seizure of property to pay debts owed I suggest you lay off of whatever intoxicant is doing that damage to you.
 
Last edited:
Which is no where to be found in the constitution. You can look if you want.
Not that it pertains to this scenario but yes it is there.
…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Right there at the end of the 5th amendment. :)

I am not a big fan of its use. It should be used quite sparingly and have a high bar to be met for doing so, which IMO is the natural outcome of taking the whole of the Constitution into equal consideration. But the provision that private property can be taken is very clearly implicit in directions given in that phrase.
 
Last edited:
Not that it pertains to this scenario but yes it is there.

Right there at the end of the 5th amendment. :)

I am not a big fan of its use. It should be used quite sparingly and have a high bar to be met for doing so, which IMO is the natural outcome of taking the whole of the Constitution into equal consideration. But the provision that private property can be taken is very clearly implicit in directions given in that phrase.

It never says the sale can be forced on the seller nor does it suggest that the government has domain on anything. It just says they must offer up compensation for the sale. Unless I somehow forgot the meaning of compulsory, which I didn't, they have no authority to act in such a fashion.
 
It never says the sale can be forced on the seller nor does it suggest that the government has domain on anything. It just says they must offer up compensation for the sale. Unless I somehow forgot the meaning of compulsory, which I didn't, they have no authority to act in such a fashion.

Ummm... they did do that, didn't they?
 
My argument is not dependent on the value of the stock, but instead the existence of the stock being taken by the government. I'm sorry, but the government did not have the authority to take the stock, period.


here is the scenario as i understand it
AIG was underwater. derivatives were insured by AIG in huge amounts ... think Trillions
but AIG was without the cash to cover its extensive insured derivative exposure, internationally

AIG's failure would have been the linchpin that allowed the world economy as we know it, to collapse

to avoid that, our government provided the MASSIVE infusion of capital AIG required to remain afloat
but as a lender, the government prudently imposed conditions on AIG before providing the essential capital required. among those requirements was a taxpayer ownership interest of 80% of the company. also required was the sale of assets to mitigate the amounts required from the taxpayer monies

now notice, AIG could have refused to accept the money and the conditions which were attached to it
but it did not
and AIG survived, where it would have been a valueless pile of rubble but for that government intervention

which is why any legal action against its lender, the USA, which preserved the company as a viable concern, should be found absurd
there is NO fifth amendment violation to be found. the government took nothing ... other than AIG's acceptance of the terms of its loan
 
It never says the sale can be forced on the seller nor does it suggest that the government has domain on anything. It just says they must offer up compensation for the sale. Unless I somehow forgot the meaning of compulsory, which I didn't, they have no authority to act in such a fashion.
Yes it does grant the power of what is effectively a “forced sale”. In the process of enumerating the requirement for the action it implies that action is permissible. Otherwise why state that requirement at all?

The use of “take” rather than something like “receive” or “purchase” very clearly denotes a unilateral, forcible action [on the government’s part].

Of course if you made even a modicum of effort to look into this you will find that while Jefferson had different ideas about private property ownership, Madison won the day with this compromise. Yes, a compromise. Unreimbursed seizures took place in the colonies prior to this and yes it does give a nod to Jefferson’s ideal of allodial ownership, but it was very purposely designed as neither of those.

The phrase “eminent domain” is merely the common name used for seizures. So you can stop with the literal word hunt for “domain”. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Yes it does grant the power of what is effectively a “forced sale”. In the process of enumerating the requirement for the action it implies that action is permissible. Otherwise why state that requirement at all?

The use of “take” rather than something like “receive” or “purchase” very clearly denotes a unilateral, forcible action [on the government’s part].

That is what the SC says alright except they like to add that the compensation has to be of market value. I'm not sure where they are getting that though. If the argument is the government can take whatever they want as long as they offer compensation then they could offer anything they wanted at any amount they pleased.

Of course if you made even a modicum of effort to look into this you will find that while Jefferson had different ideas about private property ownership, Madison won the day with this compromise. Yes, a compromise. Unreimbursed seizures took place in the colonies prior to this and yes it does give a nod to Jefferson’s ideal of allodial ownership, but it was very purposely designed as neither of those.

I know all about Jefferson, thanks.
 
Last edited:
That is what the SC says alright except they like to add that the compensation has to be of market value. I’m not sure where they are getting that though.
“…without just compensation.”

What, you thought the word ‘just’ had its other meaning there? :shock:
If the argument is the government can take whatever they want as long as they offer compensation then they could offer anything they wanted at any amount they pleased.
No. I already covered that in a prior post. When you consider the balance of other parts of the Constitution (and Declaration of Independence), there are very clearly limitations not all enumerated within that paragraph. For example the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness clearly interacts with this.
I know all about Jefferson, thanks.
1) I seriously doubt it.
2) You might want to consider branching out as the founding and forming of this country was not a one-man operation, and certainly did not end before Jefferson’s time did. :D
 
Dwight said:
…without just compensation.”

What, you thought the word ‘just’ had its other meaning there?

There is no reason to expect that market value or any other amount make a difference at all. Its all just opinion on what is "just" compensation.

I already covered that in a prior post. When you consider the balance of other parts of the Constitution (and Declaration of Independence), there are very clearly limitations not all enumerated within that paragraph. For example the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness clearly interacts with this.

How is that even possible? The very interpretation doesn't hold up to it.
 
As noted in the past, I believed AIG should have been wound down in an orderly fashion. Any participation by AIG in a lawsuit against the government is just one of the unintended consequences of the choices that were made. In any case, I doubt that in the shareholders will prevail the litigation given the applicability of precedents associated with failed banks.
 
So let me get this straight. We bailed them out and now they are complaining that the terms of the bailout caused a reduction of their assets, and now they should be compensated for lost profits? Just how do these corporations get off on demanding more money from us? If they didn't like the terms of the bailout they shouldn't have signed the deal, and instead went bankrupt.

Beggars can't be choosers, not that they were so poor in the first place. I really wish the conversation about socialism in America would focus more on corporate socialism. It is ruining the nation.
 
There is no reason to expect that market value or any other amount make a difference at all. Its all just opinion on what is “just” compensation.
Well yeah it is “opinion”, what is just compensation. Based on sound reasoning, mastery of the English language, legal precedent, and such. That is why we have judges and SCOTUS. :D To figure out the details of “just”, and “reasonable”, and other such legal metrics and standards. Because attempting to write a Constitution that enumerated everything single detail would not only take a metric buttload (official SI unit of measure! :D ) of text, it would also inevitable fail to cover something, not to mention within years break because something in the world (our knowledge and understanding of the world, commerce realities, etc.) would change and it would not make sense anymore. In the same vein it would also remove room for laws (and guidelines regulations, enacted by the Executive Branch under laws) to work within it in.

It short it would weaken the Constitution to the point of being unworkable.

Constitutions work best as light frameworks, with little meddling and relatively infrequent changes. Just take a look at the mess California has gotten itself into with its relatively numerous and frequent amendments, and that is small potatoes compared to the detail you seem to be expecting.
How is that even possible? The very interpretation doesn't hold up to it.
Of course it does hold up, which is why it has has long (AKA always) been understood in that manner.

You have some serious reading comprehension issues, coupled with what appears to be wishful thinking. I understand your desire for property rights in the vein of Jefferson’s voiced opinions, but that did not happen. They are not in the US Constitution, they have never present in the US Constitutional law, and realistically speaking it is very unlikely they ever will. Certainly not in the near future.

So what you wish for is some different country, some different government structure. Which is fine, holding such a desire is entirely valid. Maybe it would even be a better country, at the very least from some people’s POV. *shrug* But all you will earn from deluding yourself into thinking that such is the case with the US Constitution, that it is this country, is the label of ‘loon’. So I urge you to make that adjustment. Separate your wishes from reality and understand the distinction.

I say this with some self-interest, as that sort of thing has over the years significantly splashed over the perception onto “libertarian”. :(
 
Last edited:
After seven pages of cussing and discussing, they are pulling out? They're no fun at all, are they?
Reminds me of my first marriage, only slightly shorter.
 
So let me get this straight. We bailed them out and now they are complaining that the terms of the bailout caused a reduction of their assets, and now they should be compensated for lost profits? Just how do these corporations get off on demanding more money from us? If they didn't like the terms of the bailout they shouldn't have signed the deal, and instead went bankrupt.

Beggars can't be choosers, not that they were so poor in the first place. I really wish the conversation about socialism in America would focus more on corporate socialism. It is ruining the nation.

This had nothing to do with "socialism" on their part at least. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom