4 ms·

Since Congress defines what the law is, couldn't they do it? The only law binding Congress's lawmaking powers is the Constitution, and I don't think it restric

by panic 9y ago

Since Congress defines what the law is, couldn't they do it? The only law binding Congress's lawmaking powers is the Constitution, and I don't think it restricts their ability to dissolve corporations.

throwaway613834 9y ago
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So this would only work if you can find a clause permitting them to do this. I assume this would be the commerce clause?
yuliyp 9y ago
It does actually have such a restriction (Article 1 Section 9): "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Further, it prohibits the states from passing such laws as well (Article 1 Section 10).
- yahna 9y ago
  If Equifax gets sued into bankruptcy and the government passes a law for next time this happens I'd be okay with that outcome.
marcoperaza 9y ago
In addition to what others have said, you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process in the US.
- mtanski 9y ago
  In principle that's true... In reality 1. You can be shot by a cop even if you do not pose a real threat (they just need to claim they though you might have a gun, simple) 2. People are routinely kept in jail for unreasonably long time because their families cannot afford bail often on things charges are dropped for later 3. Ever hear of civil forfeiture? The whole thing is a nice story that we love to repeat to each other. Maybe it was easier to accept that during the cold war when the other guys were worse and news traveled slowly (or didn't). It's pretty apparently that isn't true given the quick news cycle... and opening any US history book. Sometimes I wish I could myself become a corporation. Seams it's much easier to exercise your rights as a corporation.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    >Ever hear of civil forfeiture? Yes, a process in which the government has to prove to the same standard of evidence as someone suing you. That is due process.
    - incompatible 9y ago
      Due process has been somewhat lacking in practice. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/justice-department-civil-asset-forfeiture.html?mcubz=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/justice-depar...
    - learc83 9y ago
      The difference being that the government confiscates the property while the case makes its way through court. In practice this is a huge difference.
    - ncallaway 9y ago
      > Yes, a process in which the government has to prove to the same standard of evidence as someone suing you. That's not quite true. They don't make a claim against _you_. They make a claim against the property. So, it's the same level of evidence and adversarial hearings as someone suing $1,000. This is not due process. It's a farce.
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        They have to convince a jury that the property in question is the proceeds of a crime.
        learc83 9y ago
        That's not true in all cases, which is one of the problems people have with civil asset forfeiture.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- amptorn 9y ago
  I'm sure that comes as great comfort to all the people in the US to whom that's happened.

by panic 9y ago

throwaway613834 9y ago

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So this would only work if you can find a clause permitting them to do this. I assume this would be the commerce clause?

yuliyp 9y ago

It does actually have such a restriction (Article 1 Section 9): "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Further, it prohibits the states from passing such laws as well (Article 1 Section 10).

yahna 9y ago
If Equifax gets sued into bankruptcy and the government passes a law for next time this happens I'd be okay with that outcome.

marcoperaza 9y ago

In addition to what others have said, you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process in the US.

mtanski 9y ago
In principle that's true... In reality 1. You can be shot by a cop even if you do not pose a real threat (they just need to claim they though you might have a gun, simple) 2. People are routinely kept in jail for unreasonably long time because their families cannot afford bail often on things charges are dropped for later 3. Ever hear of civil forfeiture? The whole thing is a nice story that we love to repeat to each other. Maybe it was easier to accept that during the cold war when the other guys were worse and news traveled slowly (or didn't). It's pretty apparently that isn't true given the quick news cycle... and opening any US history book. Sometimes I wish I could myself become a corporation. Seams it's much easier to exercise your rights as a corporation.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >Ever hear of civil forfeiture? Yes, a process in which the government has to prove to the same standard of evidence as someone suing you. That is due process.
  - incompatible 9y ago
    Due process has been somewhat lacking in practice. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/justice-department-civil-asset-forfeiture.html?mcubz=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/justice-depar...
  - learc83 9y ago
    The difference being that the government confiscates the property while the case makes its way through court. In practice this is a huge difference.
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    > Yes, a process in which the government has to prove to the same standard of evidence as someone suing you. That's not quite true. They don't make a claim against _you_. They make a claim against the property. So, it's the same level of evidence and adversarial hearings as someone suing $1,000. This is not due process. It's a farce.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      They have to convince a jury that the property in question is the proceeds of a crime.
      - learc83 9y ago
        That's not true in all cases, which is one of the problems people have with civil asset forfeiture.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
amptorn 9y ago
I'm sure that comes as great comfort to all the people in the US to whom that's happened.