5 ms·

The federal government really can't interfere with private contracts like this as long as everything was legal. That's why we couldn't do anything about the 200

The federal government really can't interfere with private contracts like this as long as everything was legal. That's why we couldn't do anything about the 2008 bonuses that were paid out. Once the federal gov starts tampering with private contracts it's game over for the American economy. Maybe even America itself.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nebulousthree 3y ago
> we couldn't do anything about the 2008 bonuses that were paid out We could've.. Not bailed them out?
exabrial 3y ago
Honestly that'd be the ideal situation: No bailouts, ever. I just don't see that being realistic as the cat is out the bag unfortunately.
malcolmgreaves 3y ago
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but it has always been the case that laws supersede contracts in the United States.
- hbrn 3y ago
  I don't know if you're aware of this, but laws cannot be applied retroactively.
  - Per_Bothner 3y ago
    Of course laws can be applied retroactively. As a general rule, they shouldn't be, but they certainly can be and have been. "The Constitution of the United States forbids Congress and the states to pass any ex post facto law. In 1798 it was determined that this prohibition applies only to criminal laws and is not a general restriction on retroactive legislation." (Britannica.)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
triceratops 3y ago
> Once the federal gov starts tampering with private contracts Who do you think ultimately enforces "private contracts"?
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  County sheriffs. Which is to say, if you enter a contract with me, breach it, and get a judgment entered against you, it will ultimately be the county sheriff who will come execute the judgment on your property, sell it at auction, and give the proceeds to me. The federal government is not likely to take a significant role except if I get the judgment from a federal court or the property is someplace very weird.
  - triceratops 3y ago
    Did you notice my use of the word "ultimately"?
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Yes, the county sheriff will ultimately enforce the judgment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nebulousthree 3y ago

> we couldn't do anything about the 2008 bonuses that were paid out We could've.. Not bailed them out?

exabrial 3y ago

Honestly that'd be the ideal situation: No bailouts, ever. I just don't see that being realistic as the cat is out the bag unfortunately.

malcolmgreaves 3y ago

I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but it has always been the case that laws supersede contracts in the United States.

hbrn 3y ago
I don't know if you're aware of this, but laws cannot be applied retroactively.
- Per_Bothner 3y ago
  Of course laws can be applied retroactively. As a general rule, they shouldn't be, but they certainly can be and have been. "The Constitution of the United States forbids Congress and the states to pass any ex post facto law. In 1798 it was determined that this prohibition applies only to criminal laws and is not a general restriction on retroactive legislation." (Britannica.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

triceratops 3y ago

> Once the federal gov starts tampering with private contracts Who do you think ultimately enforces "private contracts"?

singleshot_ 3y ago
County sheriffs. Which is to say, if you enter a contract with me, breach it, and get a judgment entered against you, it will ultimately be the county sheriff who will come execute the judgment on your property, sell it at auction, and give the proceeds to me. The federal government is not likely to take a significant role except if I get the judgment from a federal court or the property is someplace very weird.
- triceratops 3y ago
  Did you notice my use of the word "ultimately"?
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Yes, the county sheriff will ultimately enforce the judgment.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]