> there is no law that would permit the operation of Boeing, as a corporation, by the government,
...as we have both just been saying...
> and any such law, would, thankfully, be unconstitutional.
[Citation needed]
If the government can liquidate assets used in a crime, then if "Boeing" commits crimes, it follows that the government should be able to liquidate Boeing, because the entire company is an asset, and the ones committing the crimes are, in any meaningful sense, the people in charge of Boeing. Using that asset. To commit the crimes.
Given that, it seems to be a pretty huge stretch to claim that seizing such a company, and operating it (especially temporarily) for the public benefit, in order to both deny access to the fruits of the crime to its perpetrators, and prevent further such crimes, would be unconstitutional. It would also be massively less wasteful and destructive to the economy and the lives of the many innocent people working there to simply change out the criminal leadership for government-appointed caretakers rather than sell it all off.
Again: I'm not saying there are any laws on the books that would permit this. I just think the idea that it is prohibited by the Constitution is utterly unsupported and, at best, an extraordinary claim.
The combination of the Fifth Amendment takings clause and the Eighth Amendment excessive fines clause. The government can fine Boeing what we would consider a lot of money (perhaps even into the billions), but expropriation isn't permitted in the United States. If they want the rest of the company they can eminent domain it but that involves paying the shareholders market value (after decades of litigation).
...as we have both just been saying...
> and any such law, would, thankfully, be unconstitutional.
[Citation needed]
If the government can liquidate assets used in a crime, then if "Boeing" commits crimes, it follows that the government should be able to liquidate Boeing, because the entire company is an asset, and the ones committing the crimes are, in any meaningful sense, the people in charge of Boeing. Using that asset. To commit the crimes.
Given that, it seems to be a pretty huge stretch to claim that seizing such a company, and operating it (especially temporarily) for the public benefit, in order to both deny access to the fruits of the crime to its perpetrators, and prevent further such crimes, would be unconstitutional. It would also be massively less wasteful and destructive to the economy and the lives of the many innocent people working there to simply change out the criminal leadership for government-appointed caretakers rather than sell it all off.
Again: I'm not saying there are any laws on the books that would permit this. I just think the idea that it is prohibited by the Constitution is utterly unsupported and, at best, an extraordinary claim.