“Non-Reviewable” – Sometimes there really ARE conspiracies

The text of the proposed emergency markets legislation is now available.  Just as expected, it will contain a provision to provide immunity from any review by any court or executive agency.  Either get with the collaborationists or get with the insurgents.  There is no other choice.  The USA doesn’t exist as we once knew it.

The relevant text from the legislation:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Good luck, everyone.  We’re in uncharted waters now.  There is no rule of law if this passes – there are no markets.  We’ve all been had, and the worst is yet to come.

36 Responses to "“Non-Reviewable” – Sometimes there really ARE conspiracies"

  1. Mike   September 20, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    You are so correct. The republic is dead. The US is now a fascist state with the big corporations in control with free reign to steal even more from the average American.

    • Guest   September 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm

      There is just too much money available to be looted. The temptation is too great. We the people must say no!!!

  2. Acheson   September 20, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Sorry to cross=post from Roubini’s latest, but it’s a long comment thread over there. I think this non-review provision is a “stalking horse” and designed to ensure passage of the proposal by Congress. Everyone will be outraged by this provision, Congress will heroically take out the provision, and then we’re all happy. Possible?

  3. A. Lawyer   September 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    The provision is almost certainly unconstitutional (except maybe to those Republican judicial activists).

  4. Anonymous   September 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    I would hope that the Supreme Court would strike that provision at least as unconstitutional. After all they don’t generally like restrictions on _their_ authority.Then we would have a Constitutional crisis. The Executive vs. the Judiciary, with the economy in between. Yipes. Perhaps LB is right, it will kill what was left of the markets.Speaking of constraint, we need to constrain the legislature from passing anything like this.

  5. Michael   September 20, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    The parallel of these actions to the end of the Roman Republic is fascinating. The ultimate power of the Republic had ALWAYS resided in the Senate, even when they appointed dictators for short-term crisis resolution. If a dictator got out of hand, the Senate picked someone else to kick his ass and restore popular sovereignty. This led to some civil wars, but kept the Senate in charge. Then, tired of responsibility for governing what had become a too-big, too-complex society (economically and militarily), the Senate declared Caesar’s nephew an emperor – “Augustus” – and gave him all the responsibility (and power) for the whole “Empire.” Augustus was actually very conservative and for years he and his immediate successors tried to get the Senate to function like legislators and make some real decisions, as the traditional (unwritten) Roman consitution required, but they now responded by evading responsibility and delegating all their authority to the Emperor. Eventually, of course, the crazy Emperors came along and the Senate happily declared them Gods and sat by while they instituted despotism and destroyed Roman cililization.Our Congress since the year 2000 has increasingly absconded its war-declaring authority (delegating this power on an essentially permanent basis to the President in the name of “combatting terrorism.” During the last two years, and especially the last seven months, the Congress has evaded responsibility for addressing its fiscal and financial responsiblity, writing blank checks for the Fed and Treasury and delegating the official power of the purse to the executive branch in the name of “rescuing the financial system.” I understand that our elected legislators are either afraid to make wrongs moves or incapable of understanding the complexities of our financial system, or – most likely – both. Nonetheless, neither cowardice nor incompetence is a sufficient justification for giving Imperial powers to the President, in direct violation of Articles I and II of the Constitution (which give all power of the purse to the legislature and none to the executive). And formalizing their complete destruction of Article III Constitutional separation of powers, by declaring that the Judiciary cannot try cases arising out of actions of the Secretary of the Treasury, goes beyond cowardice and incompetence into the realm of treason. Like the Roman Senators who wanted to make their own lives simpler and easier by giving all power over to the executive branch so that they could limit their official responsibilities to collecting graft money and handing out petty sinecures, the selfishness of our legislators will destroy our Republic.

    • Free Tibet   September 20, 2008 at 8:31 pm

      Get this. I found this on Bloomberg sometime around the time Bonnie & Clyde went under.From Bloomberg: “Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee responsible for oversight of the companies, [FRE, FNM] said yesterday he plans to hold hearings on why the Bush administration didn’t act sooner.Now does that sound like passing the buck to you?

  6. Marc Authier   September 20, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    Anglo-saxon fascist. Adolf Hitler Bush’s idea or SS Paulson and his buddies at Goldman Sachs. This country is indeed a dictaturship.

  7. Anonymous   September 21, 2008 at 12:04 am

    Imagine Paulson practicing that line with the acting coach provided by Goldman: “God help us all” “GOD help us all” “God HELP us all” “GOD help us ALL” …

  8. AP   September 21, 2008 at 2:34 am

    On March 23, 1933 the newly elected Reichstag met in Berlin to consider passing Hitler’s Enabling Act. It was officially called the “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.” It would hand-over all its power to the Chancellor Adolf Hitler, in effect vote democracy out of existence in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. Before the vote, Hitler made a speech in which he pledged to use restraint. He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act.The rest is History

    • London Banker   September 21, 2008 at 3:07 am

      I have been thinking of the orchestrated collapse of Lehman Brothers as the burning of the Reichstag all night. I am glad I am not the only one worried by the parallels.

      • artichoke   September 21, 2008 at 9:42 am

        I thought of Lehman as the scapegoat but I didn’t think of this analogy. It is an apt one.

    • Dr. Crow   September 21, 2008 at 1:30 pm

      I actually think the Patriot Act was the enabling act for Herr Bush. This latest dreck from the Treasury defies historic parallels. As LB says, we’re in uncharted waters now…

      • Guest   September 21, 2008 at 2:10 pm

        The next step is for the government to start using the REX 84 camps?

  9. Tawal   September 21, 2008 at 3:32 am

    Notice that it’s “mortgage related”. This gives them the ability to buy Lehman’s credit default swaps, to continue to prop up the ponzi scheme. The US government can’t take on the entire $60 trillion of CDS OTC, there is a limit … or is this the plan, to bankrupt the US in order to gut social security.

  10. Guest   September 21, 2008 at 4:20 am

    Look at Mr. Kissinger on Charlie Rose regarding the NEW WORLD ORDERBy the way welcome to THE NEW WORLD ORDER blooming straight from hell

  11. Guest   September 21, 2008 at 4:23 am

    You can also look at the late Norman Dodd interview in THE AGENDA FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT

  12. Victor   September 21, 2008 at 4:34 am

    Look, the CIA has been operating like this since WWII. I think it might be okay if the process is totally transparent. That way, they may not be criminally prosecuted, but history will judge them….okay, not such a great stick.

  13. Anonymous   September 21, 2008 at 4:36 am

    This is what I am trying to understand. Lets say the cost of the bail out is 1 Trillion dollars. So where will the Govt get the money from. By issueing more Treasury Bonds. Well should this not make the dollar weak and the US economy more vulnerable. Can some one please clarify. Why will the world keep lending money to a country which is a Net Borrower.

    • artichoke   September 21, 2008 at 9:40 am

      The usual procedure in the past year has been that the Treasury (or the Fed) gives the money to the banks, and it sterilizes the intervention by taking an equivalent out of the general economy by selling bonds. So there will be a lot of Treasuries floating around to affect the yield curve, but short term conditions will be very tight.Just what we need now eh? We’ll have to borrow that money back from the banks. We suffer more but the banks are saved. That’s how it works!

  14. NICOLAS   September 21, 2008 at 4:53 am

    Seems to me the Federal Reserve Bank could have seen this train wreck coming and chose to do nothing. This is the problem. The private Federal Reseve bank is the problem. Central Banks that are private are a big problems for the world. there is no getting away from that reality.

  15. mangy cat   September 21, 2008 at 10:00 am

    “pursuant to the authority of this Act”playing devil’s advocate -i.e. acting in favor of those who i distrust-, and even prior to a scotus overruleisn’t this a two stage gamea) prove the treasury action has exceeded its authorityb) get down to the nitty-gritty of the questionable action itselfok, even then it’s more sand in the wheels of justice

  16. artichoke   September 21, 2008 at 10:38 am

    Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.I’m not sure but I think “committed to agency discretion” means the decisions by the secretary pursuant to the authority of this act will be secret.

  17. Marc August   September 21, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    LB and & everyone.If you really want to analyze the proposal and consider the potential ramifications and possibillities for abuse, please consider Section 2(b)(5);”issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act”.which, according to Section 9, has no termination date.Marc August

  18. artichoke   September 21, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Would those necessary or appropriate regulations and or other guidance also be “committed to agency discretion”, i.e. secret?

  19. Dr. Crow   September 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    I totally fail to see the need for such absolute power being given to the Treasury. The abdication of Congressional oversight in this is beyond criminal. The cost of this will be at least 1.5 trillion as it now stands with no upper limits set. The hubris in this is mindblowing. All else about it aside, I see this as a deliberate looting of the Treasury by the Bush minions on their way out of town. They saw the opportunity and took it. No matter who gets elected now it will be a done deal and the crooks escape their punishment. The US is a dead duck.

    • Guest   September 21, 2008 at 2:24 pm

      They need the power to ensure that the economy survives the situations to be started in the near future.

      • Anonymous   September 21, 2008 at 11:37 pm

        fairly cryptic – what are you alluding to? If it is Iran that would be the stupidest idea ever, don’t expect the criminal, sybaritic and or fanatically insane baby killing israelis to be of much use either- I have also heard that there is a lot of gunning for nuke use now – brilliant. If you are such an insider why don’t you do everyone a favor and take a few of these jackasses out, remember, their bright ideas put us into this mess.

  20. Murph   September 21, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Everyone is going crazy about ‘Sec 8’ but, it actually conforms with long-standing US Agency practice, which has held since the 1941 US v Morgan (313 US 409), where the Supreme Court invalidated the questioning of the Secretary of Agriculture’s decision-making process.The applicable test is the (very high) ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard. Other than that, the Court will generally limit its review to whether an Agency followed its own published policies and procedures.In any case, the Legislative and Executive do not have the power to negate the Judiciary’s powers of review, regardless of what they write into this law. If the Judiciary wants to review it, they will.This is not at all to imply that this scheme is good, only to point out that everyone is going nuts over a detail which is not particularly exceptional.

    • Guest   September 21, 2008 at 9:56 pm

      from an article at:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYXtwpG9mw9g&refer=home

      The U.S. Treasury submitted revised guidance to Congress on its plan a day after first submitting it, as lawmakers and lobbyists push their own ideas. Officials now propose buying what they term troubled assets, without specifying the type, according to a document obtained by Bloomberg News and confirmed by a congressional aide.The change suggests the inclusion of instruments such as car and student loans, credit-card debt and any other troubled asset.

      Looks like all kind of debt will end up in the hands of the government…

  21. Guest   September 21, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Was Paulson brought in to engineer this bailout? Why did this “crisis” happen to materialize just before Congress is scheduled to recess? Is this coincidence or design? Paulson was sworn in on July 10. On July 22 he was asking Congress to quickly approve a support package for Fannie & Freddie. Paulson owns over $100 million in Goldman Sachs stock.In her book, “The Shock Doctrine,” Naomi Klein makes a cogent argument that the Bushies have used “crises,” manufactured or otherwise, to ram through legislation that wouldn’t have even been considered in normal times. They have plans to alter the landscape permanently. With all the police-state measures in place, this country is looking more and more fascist.

  22. Guest   September 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Next Stop….Concetration Camps…..

  23. Guest   September 22, 2008 at 2:08 am

    A comment by Ted to the article “The Unitary Federal Reserve – Crisis Choreography”

    From John Mauldin’s newsletter:”Want to get really mad? Up until 2003, all investment banks were allowed only 12 to 1 leverage. Then in 2004, the SEC basically gave five banks (and only five banks) the ability to lever up 30 or even 40 to 1. Bet you can guess the five banks. Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan and Goldman. Three down.”How many of you guys knew this ? I sure as hell didn’t, and I guess that was the point. If this *was not* done in stealth, the public would have immediately cried foul. Which SEC chairman approved this in 2004 ? This is precisely where the mess started. This guy needs to be jailed, along with the heads of the investments banks who pressured him to loosen the restrictions. The executive comp now offshored in swiss bank accounts needs to be returned.What business model can sustain 30-40 times leverage ? This is an obvious crime.

    …and a comment by ptm to the article “We need a new HOLC – more than a new RTC or RFC…” by Roubini

    September 22, 2008, An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis, John P. Hussman, Ph.D.These institutions are not failing because 95% of the assets have gone bad. They are failing because 5% of the assets have gone bad and they over-stretched their capital. At the heart of the problem is “gross leverage” – the ratio of total assets taken on by the company to its shareholder equity. The sequence of failures we’ve observed in recent months, starting with Bear Stearns, has followed almost exactly in order of their gross leverage multiples. After Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac went into crisis, Lehman and Merrill Lynch followed. Morgan Stanley, and Hank Paulson’s former employer, Goldman Sachs, remain the most leveraged companies on Wall Street, with gross leverage multiples above 20.

  24. Guest   September 22, 2008 at 9:51 am

    With the government now getting involved in banking and insurance, would it mean that they can finally afford universal health care insurance for all of the citizens?