I, too, think the counseling aspect is kind of strange, but I don’t see any reason it would be unconstitutional. The constitution gives Congress the authority to make the bankruptcy laws uniform. It says nothing about what the content of the laws must be (other than that they be uniform throughout the US).
Well, I’d look at this whole “credit counseling” thing with more skepticism if credit counseling operations were, as a general rule, owned and/or operated by the larger financial istitutions. That would strike me as, well, incestuous. The cousin-fucking of the ruling class.
But since most credit counseling outlets are little Mom 'n Pop outlets, small businesses like Hank’s Credit Counseling, Bait and Ammo, its just further proof of how the Republicans are keenly concerned with the “little guy”. The CEO of Citigroup, for instance, is about 5 foot 4…
Perhaps the bunkruptee can open a credit counseling outlet once he/she is in the clear. It’s part of the ownership society. 
Don’t be obtuse yourself. What I said I said in the context of the OP spouting off about Ayn Rand and Capitalisim…in the context of Federal legislation of all things. As you are well aware of, this is a FEDERAL law, legislated by the GOVERNMENT. In that context it has jack shit to do with Ayn Rand OR Capitalism…right? Let me summarize the bullshit in case you forgot:
What this rant has to do with anything at all is unclear to me. As an answer to the unanswerable: I sleep fine. I sleep even better when I’m able to grind the peasants and workers into the dirt before laying down.
To summarize the summary: We are talking about a law that dicks with the free market by modifying an earlier law dicking with the free market from the Federal level, something Rand would be opposed too in the first place (i.e. why drag her into this discussion at all?), and something that actually has nothing to do with pure Capitalism (i.e. again, why drag this in?) but instead has to do with the government. The OP and his/her rant seems completely disconnected (to me) from the cite…i.e. the OP is just looking to bash on Capitalism and what he perceives as Randians on this board (something I haven’t seen of ANY of the more libertarian types on this board) and just latched onto the cite and decided that though its the Federal Government doing this that somehow its the fault of Capitalism and The Market (and even more incomprehensibly, Ayn Rand and/or her philosophy). Thus the explosion of my irony meter.
Now, if you wish to debate the actual law, and what mistakes the government is making by screwing with the existing law thats another matter entirely.
-XT
p.s. Who IS John Galt? 
Where in the Constitution are bankruptcy courts mandated?
Article III only provides for the establishment of the Supreme Court. It leaves it up to Congress to decide whether to create any other federal courts:
The parallel provision in Article I reads:
Nothing there that says Congress must establish federal bankruptcy courts, or any other federal courts, for that matter. The extent to which there would be a federal judiciary was one of the points in debate at the Constitutional Convention, and the decision was to leave that to the discretion of Congress to decide.
As well, the federal bankruptcy power is expressed as a power of Congress to pass a law, not a right of an individual to file for bankruptcy in a federal court:
My understanding is that this grant of power is discretionary, like all the other grants of federal power: Congress can legislate in this area, but is not required to do so. If it does choose to do so, it can set the terms and conditions for filing for bankruptcy, provided the federal law on bankruptcy is uniform throughout the United States.
As for the involuntary servitude argument, the Thirteenth Amendment has been given a pretty specific interpretation: it’s aimed at slavery. Requiring someone to agree to counseling as a condition of invoking the rights under the bankruptcy statute strikes me as a pretty far cry from slavery.
Why are you “uh-huhing” me? You said you “missed that part of the Constitution”, and asked to have your recollection refreshed. If you were aware of the clause and its meaning of impair, why didn’t you just tell Zamboniracer what you’re telling me?
Because it appeared to me that zamboniracer must be referring to something else entirely.
He said:
So he’s not just referring to a section of the Constitution that mentions contracts - he is referring to some requirement that defines a “freedom to contract” and a “freedom NOT to contract”. It was these additions that caused me to question which part of the Constitution he was reading.
You helpfully quoted the section that refers to impairment of contracts, but it does not, either by plain language or existing case law, mean what zamboniracer suggested, so you got an “Uh huh” and an explanation.
I certainly didn’t intend for the “Uh huh” to offend, and if it did, I certainly apologize.
Here again I must disagree. Art. I, Sec. 8 gives Congress the power to establish uniform bankruptcy laws if they choose. It does not create an unfettered right of the individual to file bankruptcy without any regulation at all.
I certainly agree you may argue that this exercise of Congress’ power is unwise. It is most certainly not unconstitutional.
I’ll stipulate that your anecdotes are true. I’ll even stipulate that you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That said, what do you believe is a reasonable percentage of denials? What percentage of denials is fraud purpetrated on the insurance company? What percentage is due to vital information missing from a claim form? What percentage involves incidents and personnel not covered by the plan? What percentage is due to your unawareness of the plan’s terms? If you’re one of those unfortunate people who get the shit end of every stick they touch — as appears to be the case with you and insurance — then nothing will help you short of a change in fortune. But statistically, you’re an aberration.
Not having read the entire thread, I don’t know if this point has already been made, but… If you think it’s bad now, just wait until rising interest rates cause the billions of dollars borrowed today in adjustable-rate mortgages to become tens of billions of dollars owed tomorrow!
No problem. I get intellectual whiplash trying to wrap my brain around the notion of freedoms and rights coming from dead men’s scribbles. For me, it wasn’t a matter of a freedom coming from somewhere, but of a freedom denied by something.
Well, perhaps this doversion belongs in the “Where rights come from” thread, but while I see your point as to rights in general, I hope you see mine, in turn, that these are not of CONSTITUTIONAL origin. In other words, accepting your observation that “dead men’s scribbles” are not the source of rights, it seems we both agree that regardless of whether the right exists or not, it’s not constitutional in nature.
It’s entirely possible that I misunderstand one of the main reasons for drafting bankruptcy laws in the first place, but aren’t these “groups” or “types” you’ve identified the very people these laws are intended to protect? And aren’t they indeed protected? I can understand a certain amount of sympathy for their bad roll of the dice - there but for the grace of God go I, and all that - but what’s the alternative - No Loss in Life’s Lottery Insurance?
I do see yours (despite disagreeing with it). I was just explaining that, had I taken into account your most likely view, I might better have understood why you said what you said. I find myself to be the victim of the same thing quite often, only my views are so unique (to this particular board) that I’m seldom given the benefit of the doubt, and am thought to be obtuse or belligerent, when in fact I merely have a different worldview. In other words, nevermind.
A Google search of the phrase “bankruptcy is a constitutional right” leads to numerous websites, mostly of attorneys who practice in the field of bankruptcy, and who assert in their advertising that “bankruptcy is a constitutional right”. If use of the phrase bothers you feel free to file claims against them for false or misleading advertising.
As for my involuntary servitude argument allow me to introduce you to the term “hyperbole.”
The papers and TV are full of real-life, everyday anecdotal stories of property loss due to natural catastrophe, but for every “poor me” story, there’s a “not-so-poor me” story like Loopydude’s neighbor. What bugs me most are those Lexus drivers (who refuse to downsize) and the owners of Maibu beachfront who, just because they can afford the premium, have their insurance companies re-build their multi-million dollar homes every few years. Oh, and the contents (purchased from the glittering shops along Rodeo Drive) are replaced, as well.
My point, if it’s required to have one, is that their premiums, although high, don’t even come close to covering these costs… the rest of us responsibly-insured types pick up that tab.
They must own nothing of consequence, like family photos and baby’s first shoes.
I’m not a lawyer, Zamboniracer, but what if this is a condition of the original loan application?
Some might argue that an increasing gulf between the rich and the poor adds individual incentive to close that gap… usually by increasing one’s own wealth as opposed to decreasing that of others.
You’ll recall that Loopydude never said his neighbor filed for bankruptcy protection. He said her house was foreclosed and that now she has a $40,000 car. Quite frankly, I don’t see his point. She is killing her credit, but what does that have to do with bankruptcy law.
I may be one of the only people here who actually practices bankruptcy law. I have been a lawyer for six years, I’m relatively young (straight through college and law school right into first job), so I’m low on the life-stories reagarding big spending neighbors, but I did consumer work representing debtors in both 7’s and 13’s for two years at the beginning of my career. I have also represented secured and unsecured creditors in consumer 7’s and 13’s. I now represent individual and corporate debtors in 7’s and 11’s (no more 13), Chapter 7 Trustees, and secured and unsecured creditors in 11’s. I have been involved in the smallest 7’s (less than $10,000 debt) to the biggest 11’s (how’s Worldcom, USAirways, the list goes on). My point, what I lack in spendthirift neighbor stories I make up for in practical experience.
Yes, bankruptcy law was being abused, but guess what, in Ch. 13, not 7. There has always been a provision to prevent abuse in 7’s, 11 U.S.C. sec 707(b), this new “means test,” practically replaces the discretion given the courts under the former law, and it’s unrealistic in a metropolis like Atlanta that sits in a relatively rural (low income/low cost of living) state. I can tell you this, I know no bankruptcy attorney, regardless of political stripe or area of practice, that thinks the law is good – most jokingly refer to it as a return to debtor’s prison.
I don’t know… maybe get a better job? Unless by “locked” you mean that there’s chains and stuff, then the guy really does have problems!