TITLE I - Authorizing the Treasury Department to Buy Mortgage-Related Assets
Sec. 8. Limits on review. (13 Comments)
-
IN GENERAL.Any determination of the Secretary with regard to any particular troubled asset pursuant to this Act shall be final, and shall not be set aside unless such determination is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law.
-
EXCEPTION.Notwithstanding subsection (a), the terms of a residential mortgage loan that is part of any purchase by the Secretary under this Act shall remain subject to all claims and defenses that would otherwise apply notwithstanding the exercise of authority by the Secretary or the Corporation under this Act.
13 comments on Sec. 8. Limits on review.
-
c. RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY Nothing in this act may be construed as providing retro-active immunity for illegal acts by financial institutions whose assets were purchased under Title I, Clause 2, or their subsidiaries, or their employees, contractors, board members, and other associated parties.
posted by lambert strether (Corrente) at September 22, 2008 -
RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY ---completly agree
posted by Chuck Anderson at September 22, 2008 -
No retroactive immunity. I also agree.
posted by A Citizen from NJ at September 22, 2008 -
No retroactive immunity for ANYONE!
posted by Deonne at September 23, 2008 -
The act doesn't provide immunity for anyone. I think you all are thinking of the warrantless wiretapping law. That doesn't apply here.
posted by Mithras Invicti, blog Fables of the Reconstruction at September 23, 2008 -
... provide retroactive immunity. It's important not to have that sneak in here, or in regulations, or anywhere else. See <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/paulson_plan_retroactive_immunity_for_wall_street">McClatchy</a> and <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/the_authorization_to_use_financial_force">clause 8</a>.
posted by Clause 8 of the Paulson proposal does... at September 23, 2008
So, no, the comment does not confuse this bill (which is about finance) with FISA (which is about intelligence). However, it important that the retroactive immunity conferred by FISA reform does not become a precedent in this situation. -
[Sorry for double post!]
posted by lambert strether (Corrente) at September 23, 2008
Clause 8 of the Paulson proposal does provide retroactive immunity. It's important not to have that sneak in here, or in regulations, or anywhere else. See
McClatchy:
http://www.correntewire.com/paulson_p...
Clause 8:
href="http://www.correntewire.com/the_authorization_to_use_financial_force
So, no, these comment do not confuse this bill (which is about finance) with FISA (which is about intelligence).
However, it important that the retroactive immunity conferred by FISA reform does not become a precedent in this situation. -
The original proposal, presented by Paulson, did indeed have wording that effectively gave retroactive immunity. That was one of the most notable features of their original proposal, I thought
posted by Dave M at September 26, 2008 -
"Any determination of the Secretary with regard to any particular troubled asset pursuant to this Act shall be final, and shall not be set aside unless such determination is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law." Is it far-fetched to imagine some disgruntled executive or firm with more Swiss Gold than our treasury take its case before a cronie Supreme Court and get a ruling that the whole scheme is unlawful because it is unconstitutional? Do we get back our $700 billion or do we get to pay damages too?
posted by Thalia's Bark at September 27, 2008 -
This has to be read in light of 5 USC 706.
posted by Twofish at September 27, 2008
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/st...
The purpose of this section is to prevent someone from starting a lawsuit based *only* on the fact that the Secretary of Treasury didn't do the proper procedures in making a decision, even if the decision is good. This could be used by a law firm to get settlement money. Also another more recent draft also restricts injunctive relief. This means that a law firm can't get a settlement by threatening to derail a deal in advance.
Also I wouldn't worry about having some big firm rule the whole thing is unlawful since most disgruntled executives and firms become gruntled if you pay them a settlement, and a settlement is usually far, far, far more profitable than taking a constitutional case to the supreme court, which is extremely expensive. -
All sections of this law MUST be in accordance with the United States constitution, each states constitution, any and all state and federal laws. any and all persons involved with the execution of this law are liable under current laws.
posted by Jeff at September 27, 2008 -
All decisions and actions undertaken pursuant to this Act shall be fully reviewable by any court of competent jurisdiction. Sorry, no limits on review - you will be held responsible!
posted by D Edwards - Citizen at September 27, 2008 -
The Secretary has too much power and no oversight except for a crippled reviewing committee.
posted by Craig Bryant, Citizen at September 28, 2008
I agree! c. RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY Nothing in this act may be construed as providing retro-active immunity for illegal acts by financial institutions whose assets were purchased under Title I, Clause 2, or their subsidiaries, or their employees, contractors, board members, and other associated parties.