Bubbling Crude, Black Gold, Texas Tea, Oil that is.

[asimpson2006]

What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.

I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power.  I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."

Maybe if you read Article I in a mirror so it reads backward it might have something about regulating profits of corporations.

[CheezeFlixz]

What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.

I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power.  I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."

Maybe if you read Article I in a mirror so it reads backward it might have something about regulating profits of corporations.

Actually I think you have to use a Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring.



I just heard a story that Chuck Schumer (I think it was Schumer, might have been Harry Reed) wants of take oil company profits and set up a trust fund ... for what, for who? The Congressional cafeteria? Which just needed an emergency funding of $250,000 to make payroll ... jeez they can't run a restaurant and they're going to fix all these other problems ... PLEASE!!!

Who's profits will they take next if they take the oil company profits ... which by the way is publicly held stock, 60% of which is owned by Mutual Funds which are widely held by 401K programs ... that means congress wants to take the money that could be going into your retirement... but they don't tell you that, do they?

edit typo

[asimpson2006]

What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.

I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power.  I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."

Maybe if you read Article I in a mirror so it reads backward it might have something about regulating profits of corporations.

Actually I think you have to use a Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring.

ROFL, Karma for you.  Seeing that decoder ring made me think of that scene in A Christmas Story about drinking your ovaltine and I just crack up every time I think of it.

[Rev. Powell]

What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.

I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power.  I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:  "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."

I know that won't please you--it doesn't please me--but there's little doubt in my mind that's where the power comes from, and that even the current conservative Supreme Court would uphold such a law as valid under the Commerce Clause.

[ulthar]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:  "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."

That looks to me like a foreign trade clause or at worse an Interstate Commerce clause.

So, what does that have to do with limiting PROFITS of publicly owned, private US based corporations retailing their goods to private, US citizens?

Congress is not in talks to regulate how much the US Oil Companies can PAY for oil from foreign sources.  They are not even really talking about limiting the price the consumer will pay at the pump.  They are talking about stealing the profits from the sale of a freely traded, legal product between a US company and the US citizenry.

Remind me how that fits the spirit of the Constitution and Federal Government as envisioned by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson?

I know that won't please you--it doesn't please me--but there's little doubt in my mind that's where the power comes from, and that even the current conservative Supreme Court would uphold such a law as valid under the Commerce Clause.

You're right...I'm not satisfied with that.  But what do I know?

Personally, I don't think their power to do this comes from anywhere in the Constitution...I think it is power usurped. But they'll get away with it, because it looks like they are "doing something," and a lot of folks won't see beyond their own wallets (like these measures will lower the price of gas anyway).

[CheezeFlixz]

What is mind-boggling to me is that US Congress thinks it is legally empowered to regulate the profits of ANY private industry.

I'd like someone to point me to the section of Article I that appoints that power.  I just read Article I and did not see anything about "regulating profits of corporations."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:  "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..."

I know that won't please you--it doesn't please me--but there's little doubt in my mind that's where the power comes from, and that even the current conservative Supreme Court would uphold such a law as valid under the Commerce Clause.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I do not think that extends to PRIVATE industry. Note the words NATIONS and STATES (and Indian tribes).

Art I Sec 8 deal primarily with taxation and other methods of taking and spending. 

The point is not that IF they CAN do it is IF they SHOULD do it ... and the answer is no they should not.

Oil Companies make about 9 cents on every dollar.
Software Co make about 22 cents per dollar.
Soft drink Co make about 14 cents per dollar.
Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cent per dollar.
Altria Group (Marlboro) 22 cents per dollar.
Merck pharmaceutical, 25.3 cents per dollar.

Where is the outcry over those profits? Should we tax them and undermine everything that is American, everything that is capitalism?

Exxon Mobil the US's largest oil company was ranked No. 127 on Fortunes gross profitability rating. So we need to tax the other 126 to right? Let's drive all prices up higher, that would be fair.

[Rev. Powell]

You're right...I'm not satisfied with that.  But what do I know?

Personally, I don't think their power to do this comes from anywhere in the Constitution...I think it is power usurped. But they'll get away with it, because it looks like they are "doing something," and a lot of folks won't see beyond their own wallets (like these measures will lower the price of gas anyway).

I agree with you (and Cheeze).  And many Constitutional scholars agree, in principle.  But whether Hamilton and Jefferson would have agreed with this interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it's been settled Constitutional law for 70 years that the federal power to regulate commerce extends to private industry. 

Want to get outraged?  In 1948 the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government could regulate the amount of wheat a man could grow on his own land, for his own private consumption, even though it was not intended to enter commerce (much less interstate commerce).  It was a commercial activity properly within Congress' power to regulate.  Federalism died the day the court handed down that decision.

Article I Sec. 8 deals with ennumerated powers of Congress, not just taxation.  It includes, for example, the power of Congress to declare war, which is now in reality pretty much an  executive function.

Back on topic, Cheeze is right: it's not a question of whether Congress has the power to regulate profits, but whether it's a good idea to.  I've been told that oil companies follow a boom or bust cycle: they make huge profits in years like 2008, but post small losses most years.  So theur "windfall" profits now help them to keep funtioning in the lean years.  In the long run hurting their profitability will hurt us all: companies will get out of the oil business.  But people who feel they're paying too much at the pump won't elect a candidate who won't promise to do something about it, even if it's foolish. 

[CheezeFlixz]

But people who feel they're paying too much at the pump won't elect a candidate who won't promise to do something about it, even if it's foolish.

The primary reason we end up with the clowns we have in Washington, they don't want a politician that well tell them the truth they want one that will promise them the moon. This is what happens when you have a voting public that is about 99% lemming and 1% independent thinker. Nothing a politician hates worse than a educated voter.