It is funny to see how Obama and his team justify the ” ends” and will use all “means” to suit their polititical philosophy. Bush did the same thing both are wrong.
Democrats and progressives view Gitmo as a gross deviation from civil rights and due process of law, and the seminal case they cite is Korematsu v U.S. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZO.html, in which the court “wrongfully” permitted the incarceration in camps of Japanese men, women and children for fear they were enemy combatants. This case is repulsive to many as we altered our core fundamental “constitutional due process rights” for expediency. ( fear of Japanese families , they were all anti American and traitors) To many including the President we can never ever, lower our principles even in time of war. For when we do we alter who we are and what we stand for, as such Gitmo is offensive, immoral and unconstitutional for deprivation of due process.
However, when dealing with economic law, and contract law, adherence to contract law, is subordinate to our unique and precarious economic crisis. As such team Obama states that the “economic cricis” requires us to alter our contractual principles
Plain and simple ” A contract is a promise that the law will enforce”. I saw a television show documentary, in which a retiree who invested in GM bonds took a subordinate role to Union members even though his ” contract” had stated he had priority over others including the union. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601009&sid=af4lR7a4FXsM
Contracts are promies , lawful and this is to maximize ” certainty”. Obama’s reformation has challenged contract law.
Although Obama was a critic of President Bush , and rightfully so on many issues he was especially critical of ” massive executive branch power”. See http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/will_obama_be_l.html and http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/03/16/obama-like-bush-uses-crisis-to-expand-presidential-power.html
Yet Obama has exceeded every living president in making gargantuan economic decisionsand demanding concessions from bond holders who, by contract law should have been a priority creditor over union workers. While Chrysler was owned by a hedge fund, GM bond holders were ” retirees” who socked away money and deferred their present compensation. Bloomberg reports two ” main street” retirees who are losing money they saved while union workers get priority treatment contrary to express contract terms. See http://seekingalpha.com/article/140261-gm-bankruptcy-watch-woe-to-main-street-bondholders Some reporters are suggesting strong arm tactics from the White House , if they proceed forward with litigation against team Obama. See http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html
In Contract Law Youngstown vs Ohio is cited as Unconstitutional Executive Power.
In the case stayed by Justice Ginsburg , the Indiana funds explicitly compar ed the Chrysler case with Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, the 1952 decision http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0579_ZO.htmlin which the Supreme Court rejected President Harry S. Truman’s assertion that he had the constitutional authority to seize steel mills during the Korean War.
So will Justice Ginsburg the so called ” liberal” protect bond holders and uphold contract law. I think she will and it will challenge both Republicans who are critical of her and Democrats who think she is “progressive”. I think she is an independent thinker, and will side with Bond Holders because the principle is consistency not convenient dove tailed political law.