Business Bankruptcy Law | Small Business Bankruptcy Laws

……… he can’t come out and say it’s constitutional, because it’s not, but don’t take it from me, see for yourself. Just watch the videos in the links below.
The first two links are to two different videos from the c-span video library. Click on the flash player in the upper right hand corner of each page. The window that opens up allows you to search for keywords in the upper left hand corner of that new window after checking the show transcripts box in the lower left hand corner. You can then click on the highlighted parts of the transcript to watch the discussion, or just read it.
For the video in the first link search the keywords "seizing private business" and you can read everything else the congressman who said that, said to Geithner and what Geithner said back to him. You might have to wait several seconds for the rhetoric to show up highlighted.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=284882-1&highlight=

For this second video, search the keyword "Bachmann". You can again follow the discussion, this time between Geithner and her. This is very important. She asks if the things the treasury has recently been doing are constitutional. Realize this includes them asking for the power to seize and liquidate "systemic risk" businesses. After failing to answer the question for a while the best thing he says is that " it’s in the laws of the land," which boils down to her asking "specifically, where is this in the constitution," and him saying "Oh, it’s in there." This is not a real answer. The truth is, this sort of power is not explicitly or implicitly given to the federal government anywhere in the constitution. That’s why he didn’t give a real answer.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=284797-1&highlight=

To let you be sure Geithner is asking for this, read from a link to a third source from a British publication. Hit "contol f" to search for "liquidating." In the surrounding sentence and material you clearly see they express a need for "federal powers to take over a non-bank financial firm and allow an orderly process for liquidating it." This is to support what you see in the c-span clips. Also, they want this authority to be permanent, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5052866/US-Treasury-chief-Geithner-seeks-power-over-hedge-funds-private-equity-and-derivatives.html

The proof here is for those skeptical of conservative pundits etc. This stuff comes straight from the source, not a short clip on Glenn Beck.
Remember, the federal government is given specific powers by the constitution and all others are reserved for the states and the people. If something is not explicitly described as a power of the Federal government like this, the burden of evidence lies not in proving why it is not constitutional, BUT WHY IT IS constitutional. The government loosely interprets the interstate commerce clause to allow for all sorts of regulations on business. That’s good. The real solution is preventing powerful, influential corporations from becoming "systemic risks" in the first place (with reasonable regulations). If they get to the "systemic risk" point, the govt. has already failed. Bankruptcy already exists and at least gives a risky business a chance to restructure, instead of forcing it closed. So, there is no need for what Sheiztner is proposing. I’m all for regulation, but closing businesses deemed a "systemic risk" is a great leap towards a planned economy. Realize that if you interpret this clause as loosely and far removed as possible, it would technically allow for the planned economies of failed communist states of the past, to be constitutional in America! Just because it may not explicitly say in the constitution the government cannot control everything about all businesses, doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Surely, the framers of the constitution did not envision an America like that, and remember, it is they who said the constitution must be interpreted according to history at their point in time. This is unconstitutional. What really makes it wrong though, is that the government is worse at making big business decisions than the big businesses can be. If you think this is helping, realize this is somewhat analogous to taking a loaded gun from a 5 year old and giving it to a 2 year old! I’m for all regulation short of something that will never work like this, and again, let’s not forget, this is unconstitutional. The planned economies of the past failed. This is a giant leap towards a planned economy. Do the math.
To try and put this in perspective for those who don’t necessarily believe that Obama can do no harm, despite supporting him, you should ask yourselves "would I want a Republican government with this same authority…. if the Bush Admin. asked for power like this would I still be for it, and not qu
Link 1 will highlight the keywords in the transcript when you follow the directions, you will see who said them. Bachmann is the congresswoman speaking in link 2.

………. he can’t come out and say it’s constitutional, because it’s not, but don’t take it from me, see for yourself. Just watch the videos in the links below.
The first two links are to two different videos from the c-span video library. Click on the flash player in the upper right hand corner of each page. The window that opens up allows you to search for keywords in the upper left hand corner of that new window after checking the show transcripts box in the lower left hand corner. You can then click on the highlighted parts of the transcript to watch the discussion, or just read it.
For the video in the first link search the keywords "seizing private business" and you can read everything else the congressman who said that, said to Geithner and what Geithner said back to him. You might have to wait several seconds for the rhetoric to show up highlighted.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/in…

For this second video, search the keyword "Bachmann". You can again follow the discussion, this time between Geithner and her. This is very important. She asks if the things the treasury has recently been doing are constitutional. Realize this includes them asking for the power to seize and liquidate "systemic risk" businesses. After failing to answer the question for a while the best thing he says is that " it’s in the laws of the land," which boils down to her asking "specifically, where is this in the constitution," and him saying "Oh, it’s in there." This is not a real answer. The truth is, this sort of power is not explicitly or implicitly given to the federal government anywhere in the constitution. That’s why he didn’t give a real answer.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/in…

To let you be sure Geithner is asking for this, read from a link to a third source from a British publication. Hit "contol f" to search for "liquidating." In the surrounding sentence and material you clearly see they express a need for "federal powers to take over a non-bank financial firm and allow an orderly process for liquidating it." This is to support what you see in the c-span clips. Also, they want this authority to be permanent, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finan…

The proof here is for those skeptical of conservative pundits etc. This stuff comes straight from the source, not a short clip on Glenn Beck.
Remember, the federal government is given specific powers by the constitution and all others are reserved for the states and the people. If something is not explicitly described as a power of the Federal government like this, the burden of evidence lies not in proving why it is not constitutional, BUT WHY IT IS constitutional. The government loosely interprets the interstate commerce clause to allow for all sorts of regulations on business. That’s good. The real solution is preventing powerful, influential corporations from becoming "systemic risks" in the first place (with reasonable regulations). If they get to the "systemic risk" point, the govt. has already failed. Bankruptcy already exists and at least gives a risky business a chance to restructure, instead of forcing it closed. So, there is no need for what Sheiztner is proposing. I’m all for regulation, but closing businesses deemed a "systemic risk" is a great leap towards a planned economy. Realize that if you interpret this clause as loosely and far removed as possible, it would technically allow for the planned economies of failed communist states of the past, to be constitutional in America! Just because it may not explicitly say in the constitution the government cannot control everything about all businesses, doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Surely, the framers of the constitution did not envision an America like that, and remember, it is they who said the constitution must be interpreted according to history at their point in time. This is unconstitutional. What really makes it wrong though, is that the government is worse at making big business decisions than the big businesses can be. If you think this is helping, realize this is somewhat analogous to taking a loaded gun from a 5 year old and giving it to a 2 year old! I’m for all regulation short of something that will never work like this, and again, let’s not forget, this is unconstitutional. The planned economies of the past failed. This is a giant leap towards a planned economy. Do the math.
To try and put this in perspective for those who don’t necessarily believe that Obama can do no harm, despite supporting him, you should ask yourselves "would I want a Republican government with this same authority…. if the Bush Admin. asked for power like this would I still be for it, and not question anything."

The question: Does this give govt. too much (unconstitutional) power, and would it even work instead of failing, like unenforced regulations govt. already had in place (Madoff)?
My effin links won’t work! Sh!t !
Copy paste these into your browsers.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=284882-1&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=284797-1&highlight=

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5052866/US-Treasury-chief-Geithner-seeks-power-over-hedge-funds-private-equity-and-derivatives.html

Sorry!
Tried to copy these out of wordpad. Worked on my computer, hope they work for yours.

To sum it up I was forced to drop out of school about a year ago because my parents went bankrupt in the middle of my first semester. I had just transferred in to my dream school (an expensive private university) and had counted on my parents co-signing a loan with me. However, they had not told me that the business they had invested thousands of dollars in had gone under so when it came time to apply for a loan and pay the university for my first semester and register for the next semester’s classes I was told there was no way they could afford it. In shock and without financial or emotional support from them I left the school and moved in with my grandmother. I didn’t handle payments with the school immediately because I had no idea how to go about it and assumed they would arrange it.

After that semester I also returned to a junior college and completed requirements to transfer in to a more affordable, state school. This last fall I began a new semester at the new university feeling excited to be back in school. However, now that it is time to register for the upcoming semester’s classes I am being told that without the transcript from the first university I cannot come back to school in the Spring (the requirements for transfer students is to submit ALL transcripts from previously attended schools by the Spring) I contacted the previously attended school to discover I had been put in collections (notices had been sent to my parents home, warning of this, and my parents had never told me). They refuse to give me a transcript without paying the amount in full which is over 10,000 dollars. I have set up a payment plan with the collections agency but again, without paying it all at once, I will not get the transcript and therefore cannot finish school at the university I currently attend. I have tried applying for a loan but as a student I do not qualify for that amount without a cosigner, which I do not have. I don’t know what to do…I have tried contacting everyone imaginable, the president of the previous university, counselors, the head of admissions at my new school, and family members but no on offers me any help or alternatives. I feel so incredibly helpless and all I want to do is finish school.

Does any one know of a lender that approves student loans without a co-signer? Should I file for bankruptcy? Contact a talk show and see if they’ll give me money?? I’D DO ANYTHING TO FINISH SCHOOL! PLEASE HELP!!