An Oil Spill Is Not a License to Suspend the Rule of Law

[bonnie]

June 19, 2010

An Oil Spill Is Not a License to Suspend the Rule of Law

By Robert Eugene Simmons Jr.

With pictures of oil-drenched birds, blackened beaches, and marshlands invaded with oil streaming across our televisions every day, it is easy to become angry and demand retribution from the cause of the disaster. Unfortunately, it is also easy for unscrupulous politicians to take that anger and turn it to their political advantage. History is replete with incidents of real popular anger leading to monstrous outcomes of tyranny. Yesterday the USA wrote a new anecdote in that awful book.

There is no doubt that the oil spill produced by the Deepwater Horizon rig and BP is a disaster of monumental ecological proportions. There is no doubt that the spill has caused the loss of livelihood for fishermen, hotel owners, beach surfboard renters, and millions of other people on the gulf coast. There is also no doubt that it is BPs responsibility to get the well shut off and pay for the cleanup. There is also no doubt that a full investigation should be conducted into how the spill happened, the role of BP and of the government in it, and the mistakes made in the cleanup. We should find out what caused the blowout, how it could have been prevented, why the cleanup was so slow in getting started, why foreign experts were not allowed to help, why the EPA is blocking applications of products as simple as hay which could soak up oil, and why Governor Jindal and others were disallowed the means to protect their shorelines by government bureaucracies.

However, none of this gives the president the power to suspend the Constitution, revoke the rule of law, or demand payments from a company. In fact, the $20-billion fund "demanded" of BP by the Obama administration does just that. To understand, let's review the facts around the fund. The fund will contain $20 billion to ostensibly pay for cleanup efforts and provide compensation to those affected by the spill. It will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg, also known as Obama's pay czar, a political appointee. Mr. Feinberg will have final say-so on who gets paid what from the compensation. It is unknown what rules of evidence will be in force, what documentation will be provided, or what the priorities for payout are. There are no constraints on what the fund can be used for -- since Obama views alternative energy as a solution to the spills in the long term, could he send part of that 20 billion to alternative energy? In short, this is a huge, twenty-billion-dollar fund under the sole direction of a single guy without even congressional oversight. Disturbed yet? If you try to find the power in the Constitution that allows Obama to do this, you will be even more disturbed. If it turns out that BP got something out of this -- perhaps immunity from prosecution -- then Obama has just violated extortion laws. Will we get full disclosure on the deal given to BP for this fund? What about the payouts themselves? Will we be allowed to be a watchdog over those funds? It doesn't look like it.

Imagine you are a fisherman with a claim to 6 million in damages from the fund, but the government only wants to pay you 2 million. Where do you appeal? What are the standards to prove damages? What about a hypothetical sign-painter working out of Utah paid 3 million on his claim because he is the son of a congressman?

In America, we have a court system set up to provide rules of evidence, assess actual damages, estimate punitive damages, evaluate claims of complainants, and assign settlements or verdicts to those damaged. If you have a problem with the ruling, you can appeal that ruling. When you go to court, you will have to prove actual damages, not just imagined ones, and the defendant will have the ability to refute your claims. When millions of people filed for damages due to leaking silicone breast implants, the system worked. When millions filed for claims due to asbestos exposure, the system worked. The system is designed to be fair, impartial, and above all, apolitical. However, in the case of BP, the system was summarily replaced with a single pay czar with sole discretion over 20 billion dollars. In this case, the government can't even claim the commerce clause of the Constitution as legal basis because the commerce clause, even misinterpreted as it is, applies only to the legislature, not the executive branch.

It is always easy to defend the rule of law when it is applied to a sympathetic target, but it is much more difficult when it is applied to an oil company responsible for this spill. The natural reaction of anger makes it hard for politicians to get up and say "whoa, wait a minute, this is wrong." Few politicians have the courage to do so. Those who do say it, such as Michele Bachmann (R-MN), are universally excoriated in the press as fans of big oil and apologists for big business. However, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The rule of law is there to prevent the society from turning into anarchy. The rule of law is there to prevent the government from gaining too much power and imposing tyranny. Finally, the rule of law is there to protect the people from reactions of anger. If we will suspend it for BP, why not suspend it for accused killers and let people exact vigilante justice?

The end result of this BP oil cleanup fund is more likely to be fisherman without political connections being left hanging in the wind while their politically connected allies get big payouts. Money will go to alternative energy projects, well-connected businesses, and political interests while the actual people hurt by the spill are left out. Of course, we won't know that, because Feinberg will use "privacy" arguments to make sure the payouts are not public. When the private fisherman takes BP to court, he might be told, "sorry, we already paid 20 billion -- ask Feinberg for your cut." Will we ever know the legal documents and contracts made to establish this fund?

Two things this fund won't do for sure are shut off the gushing oil well or clean up a bird. And it won't make the government accept help from international experts or convince the EPA to allow product developers to use their products to soak up the oil in the gulf. The fund won't allow us to find out what really happened, what role the government had in the spill, or why the cleanup was slow.

The only thing it will do in the end is be a political tool for Obama to assuage the pitchfork crowd out front that "something" is being done.

[Dr. Shane]

I see no problem with BP setting up a $20 billion fund for clean up and compensation of those impacted by the disaster. I am sure there was some arm twisting but BP volunteered to do this and there is nothing illegal about BP volunteering to do this. The Kuwaiti royal family owns 27% of BP. Since we rescued them from the hands of Saddam, I would say they owe us.

[bonnie]

I see no problem with BP setting up a $20 billion fund for clean up and compensation of those impacted by the disaster. I am sure there was some arm twisting but BP volunteered to do this and there is nothing illegal about BP volunteering to do this. The Kuwaiti royal family owns 27% of BP. Since we rescued them from the hands of Saddam, I would say they owe us.

As far as what you say as to who owes us it really doesn't matter.

There should have been no arm twisting nor should the government be in charge of who gets compensated.

If I am owed a large sum of money it is not the governments business to dictate when or how I am paid.That is up to the judicial branch of government.

Obama does not seem to be aware there is more than one branch HIS

[Dr. Shane]

Obama does not seem to be aware there is more than one branch HIS

I don't think there is any basis or support for that statement.

I have no problem with arm twisting. I think if President Bush would have done more of it the price of gasoline would have never gotten so high during his administration. Arm twisting can be very good. President Obama gets a high five for this one.

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

Obama does not seem to be aware there is more than one branch HIS

I don't think there is any basis or support for that statement

One word is enough: czars

[Dr. Shane]

Czars are suppose to be consultants and not have any actual authority over policy.

[karl]

Czars are suppose to be consultants and not have any actual authority over policy.

Why not call them consultants, then? Seems more appropriate than Czar, which implies ultimate authority.

[karl]

Czars are suppose to be consultants and not have any actual authority over policy.

Why not call them consultants, then? Seems more appropriate than Czar, which implies ultimate authority.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, there isn't an actual "czar" title. That is a title the news media labels certain people in certain positions. Some are consultants and others are administrators over specific task forces. I am one that believe these "czars" should have to receive Senate confirmation but Presidents have been using them back to the FDR Administration.

[bonnie]

Well, there isn't an actual "czar" title. That is a title the news media labels certain people in certain positions. Some are consultants and others are administrators over specific task forces. I am one that believe these "czars" should have to receive Senate confirmation but Presidents have been using them back to the FDR Administration.

Never in the number Obama has appointed and never as far as I can recall any that were self proclaimed communists.

Don't think we ever had a safe school czar that had close ties to NAMBLA. Cass Susteen has quite a background.

[karl]

More steps down the road to totalitarianism. More steps away from accountability of ELECTED officials.

[there buster]

Quote:

Czars are suppose to be consultants and not have any actual authority over policy.

Perhaps you could cite the Constitutional authority or enabling legislation where the role and function of these czars is defined?

And on what authority did Kenneth Feinberg demand that compensation be cut for executives of five different companies?

[Dr. Shane]

Again, I think these "czars" should have to get Senate approval. Yes, Obama has appointed more than other Presidents before him. But... let's not be hypocrites. Lots of extreme liberals criticized Bush for doing things that Clinton and Carter did too. I don't want to be that kind of hypocrite. If we have a problem with czars, why were there no complaints when Bush was appointing czars? Was it because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity weren't talking about czars? Or because Glen Beck was playing moron trivia and not talking about politics?

[bonnie]

Again, I think these "czars" should have to get Senate approval. Yes, Obama has appointed more than other Presidents before him. But... let's not be hypocrites. Lots of extreme liberals criticized Bush for doing things that Clinton and Carter did too. I don't want to be that kind of hypocrite. If we have a problem with czars, why were there no complaints when Bush was appointing czars? Was it because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity weren't talking about czars? Or because Glen Beck was playing moron trivia and not talking about politics?

Maybe it is because most did not know that positions were filled and given power and was only accountable to the president.Or maybe it is the type of individual placed in these positions.

Maybe it is the communist connection. Maybe it is because people are now waking up to the power grabs the current president is making.

I know it is beyond your imagination that any could object to the presidents agenda without Rush,Sean or Glenn Beck. But for many of us the objections to the actions of this president were formed a long time ago. We are now just seeing how quickly a power grabbing presidency can be.

[Dr. Shane]

My point is that I don't want to be a political hypocrite. Every President since FDR has had "czars". Yes, Obama has more. But if there is a Constitutional problem with czars, why hasn't the conservative movement made an issue out of it before and why have conservative Presidents used them?

[there buster]

Quote:

when Bush was appointing czars

Please tell us who these czars were, and what sort of authority they wielded, in comparison to say, Obama's pay czar.

Previous administration's "czars" were in fact advisors, and wielded no authority unless confirmed by the Senate.

Obama and his czars are lawless, making demands and issuing edicts without legal authority, as for example cutting executive pay in five companies. Perhaps you could leave breezy generalities and speak to that specific case. On what authority did Feinberg set different pay for certain executives? On what authority did Obama demand BP pony up $20 billion? Under what legal authority will Feinberg divvy up that $20 billion?

[Tom Wetmore]

Start here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

End here - http://factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/

[bonnie]

Quote:

when Bush was appointing czars

Please tell us who these czars were, and what sort of authority they wielded, in comparison to say, Obama's pay czar.

Previous administration's "czars" were in fact advisors, and wielded no authority unless confirmed by the Senate.

Obama and his czars are lawless, making demands and issuing edicts without legal authority, as for example cutting executive pay in five companies. Perhaps you could leave breezy generalities and speak to that specific case. On what authority did Feinberg set different pay for certain executives? On what authority did Obama demand BP pony up $20 billion? Under what legal authority will Feinberg divvy up that $20 billion?

If they don't blame Bush for every action and power grab by Obama they would have to admit to what this man and his administration is doing.

[there buster]

thanks for posting the list. I had consulted it before I posted. If you actually examine it, it proves my point. Previous czars were in fact advisors.

None of them attempted to wield authority such as mandating changes in executive compensation. And we're still waiting for the Constitutional or legislative authority for that.

[there buster]

Notice how quiet it gets when we inquire into the Constitutional or legislative authority for Obama's pay czar limiting compensation for certain CEO's.

[phkrause]

Notice how quiet it gets when we inquire into the Constitutional or legislative authority for Obama's pay czar limiting compensation for certain CEO's.

Maybe no one really knows? Or would you rather have someone say something that is not true? And than we can all jump on that for a while. I haven't seen anything the other way either!

[there buster]

The answer is simple: He has no such authority.

Obama is acting (once again) outside the law.

[Dr. Shane]

I think the same was said of President Bush. Thankfully we have a system of checks and balances. Congress and the Supreme Court will keep him in line. God bless America.

[bonnie]

I think the same was said of President Bush. Thankfully we have a system of checks and balances. Congress and the Supreme Court will keep him in line. God bless America.

Really?? He has stepped way over the line once again

[Dr. Shane]

If that is true, we have elected Representatives in Congress and a Supreme Court to correct him. No reason to fear. No reason to panic. The sky is not falling.