Chrysler, Chevrolet, and the Fifth Amendment
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 11:54AM 
I'm not a constitutional scholar. I don't even play one on radio. Despite the fact I was educated in California's public schools, I do recall this line from the closing section of the Fifth Amendment--"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So, when the Obama administration decrees (as a part of the government take-over of GM and Chrysler) that a certain number of Chrysler and Chevrolet dealers (which are privately owned, with personal inventory, debt, and employees) must close (without any compensation, or purchase of their inventories or properties) simply because someone in DC tells them they must, we have crossed a very dangerous line.
Many a family business and fortune will be wiped out. Not to mention the large number of those employed by these dealers who will likewise be unemployed and now forced to exist on government largess.
For all intents and purposes, how is this not government seizure of private property?
This is one lawsuit I will watch very closely. Click here: http://www.freep.com/article/20090518/BUSINESS01/90518004/1014/Chrysler+dealers+prepare+legal+fight
The DC Caesars need their collective private property-grabbing noses bloodied on this one! How is this not a violation of the Fifth Amendment?
Reader Comments (39)
So . . . let me get this straight.
To be obedient (I am assuming you mean obeying the laws of the land), I can't disagree with Caesar publicly (a great American tradition and my legal right as a "Christian citizen"), or peaceably protest when Caesar crosses the line and violates natural law or civil legislation?
As a Christian citizen I am supposed to obey the state, keep my mouth shut, and let my freedom to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, slip away if these things may be in real jeopardy???? (N.B.-- If that actually happens, then we need to have another discussion entirely, but we are not there yet. And I, for one, don't want it to get there . . .)
"Neutering Caesar" is rhetoric you may not like, but don't miss the point I'm making (which I think you've grown way too fond of doing in these exchanges and I probably shouldn't take the bait when you take the contrarian role as you have here).
So, let me be perfectly clear--I am referring to curtailing Caesar's power when he oversteps his bounds through things I specified earlier-- like over-turning the 17th amendment. Are you telling me that the NT prohibits such things?????
I am understanding you correctly??? Because it sure sounds to me like you've already bowed the knee my friend . . .
Caesar is not your friend. He's a common grace restrainer of evil worthy of appropriate honor and he certainly needs our prayers--nothing more, nothing less. As I see it, we sin against Christ whenever we give Caesar our blind obedience!
And yes, I am worried that you are contending for something very close to this . . . Please clarify?????
First. We already have term limits. They are called elections. But I agree that politicians will do whatever necessary for self-preservation (Arlen Specter comes to mind), and they need to be turned out of office before they become "institutionalized." That is why I think the seventeenth amendment is a huge part of the problem.
Second, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not this is a bankruptcy case or a fifth amendment issue. We'll see what the courts say.
Third, I not sure what 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 has to do with our prior discussion. In that secion of the epistle, Paul is talking about the failure of the Corinthian congregation to discipline church members who were engaging in conduct shocking even to the pagans. Paul is telling the elders of this church to discipline professing church members whose conduct was more in line with the pagans they were shunning. While Christians self-righteously avoided "the world" (those outside the church) they were tolerating all kinds of ungodly behavior in their midst. That's the context.
As justified sinners, Christians have no business looking down upon non-Christians in self-righteousness. There but the grace of God . . .
You are not only too down home but you are also naive. It could be your brutal midwesterner, but I think it is your uber-two kingdomer. We have recourse in the constitution to legally voice our protest when the Government breaks their contract with the people. By going this route provided by the constitution we are being obedient. Protesting is not disobedience. But if it comes to it we also have recourse, not just as citizens of the US, but also as Christians to rise up and remove tyrrants, provided we are led to do so by lesser magistrates who are willing to lead us. Calvin made a biblical case for this, and I think he was right. You can look it up for yourself. Calvin wasn't the only one who said this. We have a whole Reformed Heritage that makes this claim. Mob revolution is seditious and should be put down, but there is such a thing as lawful removal of tyrrants. As Christians, we ought to pray that God would not allow our government to remove our constitutional liberties; we should also be praying that God would raise up leaders who are willing to fight for our constitutional liberties both in the courts and, if need be, on the battlefield. This is not contrary in any way to our Christian calling. Praying for the peace of our nation involves praying that our rulers will recognize that they are not gods, but men subject to God and His law.
I agree we must be obedient in all things that are lawful, but this in no way implies that we ought not to protest, in lawful ways, i.e., what is provided in our very own constitution, the governments wrong-doing. Nor are we left without a recourse to uphold the freedoms provided for us by divine blessing in the constitution.
1. I can talk about God and my Lutheran viewpoints, as long as I keep Caesar out of it.
2. I can talk about Caesar, and rip his head off -- and still obey him, as long as I keep God out of it.
Two Kingdoms baby -- it really works!
My reading of both the WLC and Heidelberg Catechism states that one of the moral duties required by the sixth commandment involves protecting my neighbor from harm. Obviously this necessitates the right to keep and bear arms, preferably bigger arms than the one trying to harm my neighbor. The 2nd ammendment, as part of our contract with our government, recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a necessity for self-defense and as a requirement of natural law. Jefferson and many of the other Founding Fathers wrote of self defense,natural law, and the RKBA and thought that depriving the people of RKBA was one of the foulest tyrannies. Obviously, the more the government ignores the 2nd amendment, the more one is obligated (by both natural law and the sixth commandment) to "rebel" against the government by civilly disobeying .gov's deprivation of our 2nd amendment rights.
A similar line of reasoning can be followed with the 1st amendment and WLC and the HC's treatment of the 9th commandment. And natural law. We're obligated to tell the truth, no matter how many thoughtcrime and hatespeak laws the government passes contradicting the 1st amendment, or whatever some senile judge rules based on his paranoia at the time.
Schaeffer predicted that our government would get increasingly arbitrary the more our society declined. So far, he's been right. Eventually, it may become as difficult to follow the laws of the land as it is to observe subatomic particles without affecting their trajectory. Some say that there are already enough arbitrary laws on the books that we're all constantly breaking one or another, but the biggies for me are the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments.
So your refrain of, "YOU SHALL OBEY!11!" (from my reading of Reformed and Presbyterian confessions and catechisms at lea,st,) perhaps lacks nuance and qualification. Others of goodwill may disagree, and they're welcome to persuade me otherwise. No doubt I'll catch flak from the owner of this blog for my rants.
LOL.
Sounds quite reasonable to me! Schaeffer correctly predicted what was coming, although his "manifesto" greatly exacerbated the problem.
Just asking out of genuine curiosity.
Surf over to this blog site - http://www.nowpublic.com/world/best-global-warming-discussion-ever - and check out what this gentleman has to say about global warming. According to his research, global warming and cooling patterns are cyclical and based largely on the erratic (elliptical) orbit of the earth and solar patterns. Therefore, the little bit that mankind does to exacerbate, or attempt to mitigate, the warming is a mere drop in the bucket. This kind of thing doesn't seem to be highly publicized though, for some strange reason.
George
PS: This also makes me take even more of a sideways glance at all of these well-known Evangelical leaders who were quick to sign the Global Warming Initiative....
"I just don't get it." Let me help with that.
First, it is not an east coast v. west coast thing . . .
Second, go to a local gun range, rent a gun, buy some ammo, and take a course in basic handgun. You'll love it. That will help a lot.
Third, and most important, gun ownership is symbolic of freedom. As long as I can buy and own a gun, I am a free man. That is why the framers included the Second Amendment. Many believe that the point about a "well-armed" militia was not only a provision for local defense (in an age where the frontier dominated the popular imagination) but that this was also included as protection for the citizens against government-led armed forces used against the individual states. Jefferson said as much.
Fourth, the verses you keep citing have nothing whatsoever to do with any of these issues. No one is advocating using these firearms in an aggressive criminal way--that is a leap you may have made, and no one here has even remotely suggested such a thing. But the law does have a long tradition of allowing for self-defense, protection of private property, etc.
Furthermore, loving my wife and family requires me to both provide for them and protect them. Yes, I know that is why we have police and in theory, they are the first line of defense. But if its 3:00 AM, and someone breaks into my house, that responsibility falls to me (and Andy, our toothless dog) until the police arrive.
We should never elevate property over persons. But if someone tries to harm my wife and children, and the police are not there yet . . . well, then, you do what you have to do.
Thanks for the global warming link -- it was very good. The article states that Al Gore has made millions of dollars on this issue. Also, as you state, global warming and cooling is cyclical. Remember, 30 years ago, they were saying that we were about to enter an ice age.
Reg:
One of our favorite Lutheran terms is "Adiaphora". It basically means church rites neither commanded nor forbidden by God. In common terms -- in the broader sense -- we like to refer to these issues as "grey areas."
In Phoenix, where I live, even though we have an east coast flavor because of all of the folks that live here from the east coast, we still have a wild west personality. You can walk into a Starbucks, or a grocery store and see a business man, in a suit, with a gun on his hip.
We have one of the lower crime rates for major crimes (rape, murder etc.) in the country. I am buddies with two Phoenix police officers, and they both are against gun control. They both state that they are in favor of law abiding citizens owning guns, because they believe that it cuts down on crime.
Most of our crime, can be traced to the flaws at the national level -- where the illegal aliens come in here. But our fine sheriff -- Joe Arpiao (once again just voted as a hero in our area, even though he is despised by the liberal Journo rags), is arresting and deporting the illegal aliens, much to the chagrin of the liberals, who want them here, but they want us to pay for them. (The liberals always have their hands on our back pockets, as they seek payment for their programs with our dollars.)
Christians keep on making the same mistakes, when they keep dragging God's name into social issues, like a right to bear arms, etc. Most of the social issues that Christians discuss, have nothing to do with God. To bring God's name into these "adiaphora's", or grey areas, not only is un-Biblical, but it serves as a deterrent to the Gospel.
When I am discussing social issues with an unbeliever, and they want to bring God's name into it, I quickly pull God's name out of the discussion and I get back into discussing the issues at hand.
Most of those in either the Refomed or Lutheran camps, would seek this approach, as we try to stay within the guidelines of the two kingdoms.
This is basically what I was saying earlier. The country's own founding documents invite rebellion against FedGov tyranny. What if Caesar calls for Caesar's overthrow if he gets out of hand*?
*"Out of hand" refers to FedGov ignoring the contract between We The People and FedGov.
The real meaning of the second amendment was snuffed when the gun lobby, obsessed with the right to have handguns decided to die on that hill. The truth is that it is unconstitutional to be prohibited from carrying a nuclear bomb into a federal building, but we've collectively given up that right because we're too afraid of acutally having it.
Also, I have to quibble with Stan. The American Revolution was absolute rebellious vanity. The Christians (torries) who refused to rebel against the crown were persecuted and fled to Canada. The colonists enjoyed some of the best living conditions in the world, they were represented in British parliament, and they paid no taxes. When the crown bailed out the East India Tea Company, the framers exploited the symbolic outrage against the teensy tea tax to cry "Tyranny" and perpetrated a bloody revolution that subsequently inspired the bloodbaths of the french and bolshevik revolutions.
I must agree also with Kim against Zrim that excercising the rights that God has providentially granted us to oversee our government should not be dismissed because the current leadership does not hold our positions. When those rights go away (within the next 7 years), then we will be looking at a different set of laws to obey, and we shouldn't disobey them unless they interfere with obedience to or proclamation of God's word.
But I would like to caveat, that in loudly proclaiming the constraints we would like enforced on Caesar, we must be humble, orderly, peaceloving, and uncontentious, seeking to glorify God through our actions. When I saw protesters for prop 8 in shouting matches proclaiming their Christian values amidst their unchristian behavior, I saw Christ's reputation soiled.
From the Fox news website: A Republican house member wants to make 2010 the "year of the Bible." Georgia Republican Paul Broun "wants citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scriptures."
Bozo goes on to say that our country was founded on Biblical principles. Bozo doesn't seem to realize that all faiths do not teach the same God.
Once again, Bozo needs to go back to his job as a politician, and stay out of the pulpit!
The California Tuesday would have been much more impressive if more than about 23% of the voters had participated.
I do believe that Washington will eventually get the message that the tax payers are tired of being fleeced.
Journo will try to keep this as quiet as possible -- in order to keep Messiah Obama from being hurt. Shhh! Journo wants everyone to believe that Obama is the most popular president of all time.
One last thought: How come Pelosi doesn't cry out when our soldiers are practicing waterboarding techniques as part of their training.
That is a heck of a foreign policy that we have now. The President going over seas, and doing nothing but apologizing for all of the perceived wrongs done in our past. Talk about trampling their feet over our beloved soldiers' graves on this Memorial Day weekend!
Under the "new governance" that sort of thing must not be allowed to continue; it opens the door too widely to insurrection and dissent. Therefore, it must be closed. The way it is most likely to be closed is the establishment of another, separate high-speed, inter-computer network (already in existence, in some respects, under the guise of "Internet II", supposedly for the sole propriety of scientific research). In order to gain access to this new "network" you will have to pay dearly and suffer some scrutiny by our Beloved Protectors (remember, we're only doing this for YOUR benefit). The rest of us schmucks will be stuck with gradually degrading access and throughput levels until it gets to the point where good old snail-mail might be faster.
No matter that, you might think, there's the wireless. True, but texting in that environment is costly (beats me how the parents of texting children can afford it nowadays) and is likely to go up - and it lacks the robust features of the Web. Besides, it is already under attack in several states because some people seem to think that they can carry on that type of communication while they are operating a motor vehicle and are creating numerous accidents.
So...nail them 95 Theses to the doors whilst you may, friends; time may be short.
I can understand the liberals blaming Rush for things going wrong. Ever since they began playing such lame music beginning in the 90's, things have been awful.
If only they had stuck to the hard-edged rock of "Working Man" and "2112" like they played in the 70's, they would be a much better band and society would benefit greatly.
I heard that there are about 40,000 new websites created daily, and in a couple of years the internet will be so slow, with blackouts.
Some of the others on this website probably know a lot more about this situation than I know.
I really enjoy the internet, and it is a much needed source of information. It is one of the only ways left where a person can get the truth regarding the news.
Maybe we can get some feedback from someone who knows.....