Presidential Candidate Bernie Sander (D-VT), vows to break up largest banks during his first year in - Polidicks

While I'm not exactly enthusiastic about Sanders, I really, really would like to see him somehow pull this off even partially. I fucking hate the big banks for many, many personal reasons that I will not share here but after 2008 I've basically declared a personal war against them, I'll vote for whatever measure fucks them. If it comes down to it and he gets elected I hope those thieving sons of bitches get fucking [I]wrecked[/I] for what they did to this country. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49465651]Yes, oh yes it is. It's also the reason as to why North Dakota has a four billion dollar surplus at the moment, and has an unemployment rate which constantly dips below 2.5%[/QUOTE][QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49465712]True, but even with the oil fracking slowing down, we are still at a pretty steady unemployment rate.[/QUOTE]Look at this hardcore shilling for North Dakota. Yeah, you know what we have on the other side of the border? Trees. Lakes... People. When's the last time you saw another person buddy? [I]Oh ho ho I got you now, don't you lie to me, don't you dare.[/I]

I have my friends Mr. Corn, Mr. Wheat, and Mr. Hemp Plant. :worried:

I can see this getting republican support

[QUOTE=sgman91;49465549]That's not how the constitution works. The federal government can't do something unless the constitution gives them the ability to do it. They don't get to do everything that isn't expressly forbidden.[/QUOTE] Sgman, this argument has already been settled over 150 years ago. Guess what? A "loose construction" (AKA where the government also has powers outside of what the constitution said) of the constitution won. Even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the founders of the Democratic-Republicans who based their party on having a "strict construction" interpretation of the constitution later agreed with that idea. It turns out having a government not limited to do very specific things in a document aside from amendments (which are really hard to acquire, especially in times of extreme partisanship) is a really fucking good thing.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49466243]Sgman, this argument has already been settled over 150 years ago. Guess what? A "loose construction" of the constitution won. It turns out having a government not limited to do very specific things in a document aside from amendments (which are really hard to acquire, especially in times of extreme partisanship) is a really fucking good thing.[/QUOTE] I assume you're talking about the idea of a "living document." If so, then it doesn't at all change what I said. We've established that the constitution can be interpreted differently than intended by the founders, but it still fundamentally works the same way. A basis in the constitution must still be established. You can see it in every modern court case involving federal power. The ACA personal mandate fee, for example, was justified within the powers of taxation enumerated by the constitution.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49466255]I assume you're talking about the idea of a "living document." If so, then it doesn't at all change what I said. We've established that the constitution can be interpreted differently than intended by the founders, but it still fundamentally works the same way. A basis in the constitution must still be established. You can see it in every modern court case involving federal power. The ACA personal mandate fee, for example, was justified within the powers of taxation enumerated by the constitution.[/QUOTE] No. What was established was the fact that the government is free to do what it wants as long as it doesn't interfere with what is specifically in the constitution. Now of course the precedent was set that way, but there was never actually any "clause" that forbade that. Right now the government could easily do something that doesn't have to do with what the constitution and get away with it just fine, it's just much easier and generally safer to say it's connected to the constitution even if the link is really really fucking weak.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49466265]No. What was established was the fact that the government is free to do what it wants as long as it doesn't interfere with what is specifically in the constitution. Now of course the precedent was set that way, but there was never actually any "clause" that forbade that. Right now the government could easily do something that doesn't have to do with what the constitution and get away with it just fine, it's just much easier and generally safer to say it's connected to the constitution even if the link is really really fucking weak.[/QUOTE] So why did they specifically say that the individual mandate couldn't be pressed through the use of the elastic clause, but instead should follow under the taxation powers? Seems like a lot of work if none of it mattered at all. Why would they go to the trouble of specifically saying that a certain constitutional justification didn't work if constitutional justification doesn't matter at all? You're just making this up. It's not at all the case. Show me a single Supreme Court case that dealt with an issue of federal power that didn't come down to some constitutional justification.

When did the Supreme Court get involved in this? Most federal laws never reach that, only the ones that are speculated to have no solid constitutional backing. Which is kind of why we have the supreme court.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49466306]When did the Supreme Court get involved in this? Most federal laws never reach that, only the ones that are speculated to have no solid constitutional backing. Which is kind of why we have the supreme court.[/QUOTE] Sanders has no lawful basis to break up businesses that I know of for the reason of being "too big to fail." The Sherman Anti-Trust Act would be the closes thing I can think of, but that's specifically about monopolies. So I don't really think it would work. In order for him to do what he wants he would need to get a law passed that gives them the power to do those breakups, and they would then need to go through the court battles that will inevitably come in order to show constitutional justification. It may pass with flying colors, but it's a process that will take a good amount of time, and will be setting a new precedent similarly huge to that set by the supreme court cases surrounding the Sherman Act.

Good luck with that, Bernie. Try as you might, you have to get it past 525 bank-sponsored pawns that won't play ball without a fight.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49466313]Sanders has no lawful basis to break up businesses that I know of for the reason of being "too big to fail." The Sherman Anti-Trust Act would be the closes thing I can think of, but that's specifically about monopolies. So I don't really think it would work. In order for him to do what he wants he would need to get a law passed that gives them the power to do those breakups, and they would then need to go through the court battles that will inevitably come in order to show constitutional justification. It may pass with flying colors, but it's a process that will take a good amount of time, and will be setting a new precedent similarly huge to that set by the supreme court cases surrounding the Sherman Act.[/QUOTE] I feel like you need to put more context into your posts. They're always seemingly a bit short. Anyway, that's a decent explanation, seems logical enough. Good job.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49466323]I feel like you need to put more context into your posts. They're always seemingly a bit short. Anyway, that's a decent explanation, seems logical enough. Good job.[/QUOTE] Glad I was able to clarify! I wish more people just asked instead of accusing me of things that they assume I meant.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49466313]Sanders has no lawful basis to break up businesses that I know of for the reason of being "too big to fail." The Sherman Anti-Trust Act would be the closes thing I can think of, but that's specifically about monopolies. So I don't really think it would work. In order for him to do what he wants he would need to get a law passed that gives them the power to do those breakups, and they would then need to go through the court battles that will inevitably come in order to show constitutional justification. It may pass with flying colors, but it's a process that will take a good amount of time, and will be setting a new precedent similarly huge to that set by the supreme court cases surrounding the Sherman Act.[/QUOTE] Actually he does. He could theoretically base it on the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. After all Banks are a form of commerce, and this is a regulation. Just like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I just realized our entire previous discussion was pointless.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49466338]Actually he does. He could theoretically base it on the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. After all Banks are a form of commerce, and this is a regulation. Just like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I just realized our entire previous discussion was pointless.[/QUOTE] I made that point on the last page, and like you, I'm kind of realizing this is pointless. Guess I'll mark it as unread and move on.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49466338]Actually he does. He could theoretically base it on the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. After all Banks are a form of commerce, and this is a regulation. Just like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I just realized our entire previous discussion was pointless.[/QUOTE] He very well might. I'm just very curious what line of argumentation they'll use. The Sherman Act wasn't really based on the size or market share of the business in question, but on how they got that large. If it was deemed that you used unsavory practices, then they would be able to break you up. If you got that large simply by being better and fair competition, then they had no power to break you up. I'm interested to see what line of argumentation he'll use to break them up purely based on their size.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49466373]He very well might. I'm just very curious what line of argumentation they'll use. The Sherman Act wasn't really based on the size or market share of the business in question, but on how they got that large. If it was deemed that you used unsavory practices, then they would be able to break you up. If you got that large simply by being better and fair competition, then they had no power to break you up. I'm interested to see what line of argumentation he'll use to break them up purely based on their size.[/QUOTE] He'll probably argue that they used unsavory practices to get there. It would be my go-to, and I could dig up all the ways banks lock customers in and fuck everyone over both big and small time if it were necessary.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49466373]He very well might. I'm just very curious what line of argumentation they'll use. The Sherman Act wasn't really based on the size or market share of the business in question, but on how they got that large. If it was deemed that you used unsavory practices, then they would be able to break you up. If you got that large simply by being better and fair competition, then they had no power to break you up. I'm interested to see what line of argumentation he'll use to break them up purely based on their size.[/QUOTE] Well, I suppose in he could also draw up a new bill in regards to this issue, although getting it through congress would be a bit more of a challenge. Other then that, perhaps there is already a regulation set about these kinds of things he could use other then the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, although I wouldn't know of it.