Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."
Mr. Sowell points out that "The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are."
And now, here is what I am thinking:
Remember that old quote about not caring when the Catholics were persecuted, because I'm not a Catholic. Not caring when the Jews were persecuted, because I'm not a Jew, and so on. Are we all saying, "Hurray, they are taking $20 billion from BP, and BP deserves it?"
What happens next when the government powers decide to take away assets from YOUR business or YOUR church or YOUR non-profit or anything else you care about? Shouldn't we be concerned that constitutional law is not being followed here?
Just FYI, BP voluntarily put up that money, to try to mitigate the PR disaster. Nobody took it from them.
ReplyDeleteThis is according to BP itself.
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062966
Comment from Amy: Adam raised a good point, and I read the article he referred to. Yes, BP appears to have put up the money willingly.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER,
I have agreed with everything I have read by Thomas Sowell in the past, so I am still on his side. Obama has used thug tactics many times and I do not hesitate to think he has used them again in this matter.
And the guy in charge of distributing the funds is NOT an elected official and is not answerable to anyone but Obama. So I am still okay with quoting Sowell's article.
And I still fear for our freedoms. Everyone in the nation is getting used to this type of thing, and unfortunately most won't take an interest until it starts happening to them.