Is Obama’s imposed limit on executive pay constitutional. Fox Legal Expert Judge Andrew Nepolitano thinks not. Here’s what the President said today.


The cap would only apply to financial institutions that ask for money this point forward, and Robert Gibbs seemed to indicate that there might be some exceptions to prevent bankers in need from avoiding asking for money. But in any case Judge Nepolitano says … it won’t pass muster anyway.


All comments are welcome but, if you are a constitutional lawyer, feel free to leave a comment or send an e-mail on the Judge’s ruling.

7 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    "What gets people upset, and rightfully so, is executives being rewarded for failure."

    Hmmm.  Didn't most of Congress just accept a pay raise?  Aren't Dodd and Frank still the heads of their respective committees?  How about Pelosi and her fabled 747?

  2. davis
    davis says:

    Once again nothing substantive has actually happened and we have expert legal opinions. If this is implemented, I am looking forward to the suits (all the way up to the Supreme Court, if necessary).

  3. tonymus
    tonymus says:

    Isn't this just a price control on talent?  Remember how well price controls worked in the 1970's?  Things cost what they cost for a reason – that's their going rate.

    As long as government-meddling Democrats are longing to go back to the days of double digit inflation, unemployment and mortgage rates, we should re-adopt a 1970s slogan.  I think we should all get WIN buttons, this time standing for "Whip Independence NOW!"

  4. skepticalcynic
    skepticalcynic says:

    I listened today.  I listened to this mind boggling debate on whether or not its right that  Obama put a lid on execs pay in exchange for receiving PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

    I agree that NO lid should EVER put on salaries of those in a CAPITALISTIC business entity.

    But, I'm confused, whats CAPITALISTIC about WELFARE?  And make no mistake. This is welfare.  I'm a small business owner.  ANd if I can't meet my bills, have overpaid my help, can't get a lone, I close my doors.  Period.  No tax dollars for me.  And IN RETURN, I have 100% the right to pay myself WHATEVER I wish.

    These guys had a decision to make.  I can close the company.  Or I can ask for help.  For whatever REAL reason , they decided to go to the gov for WELFARE.  And they are about to get it.  And like ANY organization that receives federal funding, they are obliged with certain restrictions.  These execs COULD have gone out and found OTHER corp jobs where the pay was unlimited.  They ARE amongst the best in america, are they not?  But, they decided to stay.  So  "suffer" with $400K, until the bill has been paid.  Its amazing how right and wrong goes out the window when the beloved dollar shows its ugly face.

  5. GRC
    GRC says:

    It sure would be nice that some limits would also be attached to any aid given to the states. Like reduce your Budget 3% per year for the next five years and reduce your work force in the same manner. But of course we all know that only the private sector is greedy and spends wildly.

    Just think if CT had done this 5 years ago.

  6. Erik Blazynski
    Erik Blazynski says:

    So is this guy saying that breaching a contract constitutes a violation of someones constitutional rights?  I don't really know about that one. I don't recall anything in the constitution about someones right to enter into a contract, but it has been years since I read the whole thing. Please link me to that text.

Comments are closed.