Replies to post #64789 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Sogo]

Ever read the TARP bill? Same thing there. It says right there in the bill that this action is not reviewable by any court ( I'm paraphrasing). If we just think back to our basic civics classes, that is a violation of our checks and balances. No one really seems to care enough these days about things like this that are fundamentally unconstitutional. Oh well. I guess we'll continue to see the gvt write it's own immunity into the laws it passes. What a clever racket that is! Go FNMA.

[ZOH]

Great insight cdhames. This will be a case for the text books if it gets standing.

[Always wondering]

Great insight. I hope you are correct because the good guys are in desperate need of a win here. The govt is just constantly taking nowadays. Money, information, property, actual companies such as this one. The constitution and individual freedoms are degrading before our eyes. Where will it end..?

Go FNMA!

[mrfence]

Very astute observations of the court systems that I'm unframiliar with... thank you for posting.

My reference to some form of "emminent domain attitude" was with the understanding of that it specifically covers real property "land" with 5th amendment rights extending to private property presuming said private property is not siezed as evidence in a crime ;-)

Lots of talk about Eminent Domain also, but I'm not sure that applies to this case. I'm not a legal expert but I think Eminent Domain has to do more with private ownership of land, and just compensation (5th amendment) that follows the seizure of it.

Interestingly enough, all forms of law originate from land laws. The law of the land forms your basic civilization... all the laws that follow are afterthoughts springing from the roots of land law.

In this case the governments justification for "nationalising" FnF was based on the same spirit, and body of law as emminent domain but nobody has bothered to write the law down... goberment just up and did it, and with total disregard for private property rights(5th amendment) while they were at it!

The shareholders suit is not trying to tackle the arguement that the goberment was not doing what was best for the nations economy. The suits arguement is that the goberment strong armed FnF to a fiscal edge then strong armed FnF into conservatorship stripping owners of private property with out just compensation and ordered the shares delisted to make sure there would be no recovery.

To bad, so sad private enterprise proves goberment inadequate so consistently!