I found the worst USSC decision of all time. Any candidate who will undo it deserves the White House

[jmowreader]

This is much worse than Bush v. Gore.

In 1978's landmark Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court found that Section 85 of the National Bank Act allows lenders to export interest rates across state lines.

http://aol1.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/20070611_fees_history_a1.asp?prodtype=pfin

Consider what this means to the average person. Before 1978, interest rates were governed by the laws of the state in which the debtor resides. Unfortunately for the nationally-chartered banking industry, this regulation required them to maintain fifty separate interest rate structures.

After Minneapolis was handed down, lenders were free to move their credit card operations to states that had the most advantageous interest regulations...like Delaware and South Dakota, which basically allow lenders to charge any rate they feel like, even on money they already loaned you.

How any candidate--ANY candidate, including a Republican--can win the working man's support on this is very simple:

1. Rewrite Section 85 of the National Bank Act to require lenders to adhere to the regulations of a debtor's home of record.
2. Institute a national Unsecured Debt Interest Rate, a national Default Interest Rate, and a national General Usury Rate. I suggest a 15% interest rate, a 21% default rate and a 25% usury rate. If you can't make Big Profits at fifteen percent you're in the wrong business.
3. Disallow the practice of adjusting the interest rates on existing debt except in the case of default to the lender making the adjustment. If you've got a MasterCard and a Lowe's card, and you default on the Lowe's card while your MasterCard is in good standing, it's unreal that the MasterCard issuer can declare your MasterCard to be in default--but that's what they're allowed to do.

Now...having said all that, there is no danger whatsoever that a Republican will do this, so you're safe.

[Gman]

1. Here, here!

Very good catch and an excellent issue to run on. It's something everyone can understand. The best part will be when Republics knee-jerk respond about letting the market determine interest rates and the rest of the country will throw up.

I suggest you send this on to all the Democratic candidates. This will catch on. It identifies the problem and proposes a fix that everyone can understand.

[Ilsa]

2. But, will it make any difference with interstate banking as it is now?

A huge majority of the banks are interstate, so wouldn't they be setting their rates across the board and claim tobe in the home state of the debtor?

You are so right: a GOPer won't do anything about this.

[jmowreader]

16. That's why we need ONE interest rate for the whole country

Most all the credit card issuers are National Banks--and that's fine, I guess. But right now they can set their rates according to the state they're running out of, which is why South Dakota has become such a nexus of high finance.

Give 'em one uniform national rate and they can't play little games.

[soothsayer]

3. why is usury allowed? Muslims are right on about this abomination.

[piedmont]

5. Muslims don't get loans?

How are they financing the building of Dubai?

[jmowreader]

17. Usury isn't allowed.

The usury rate, as you're almost certainly aware, is the dividing line between "outrageous" and "criminally outrageous" interest rates.

In a state like Delaware, where there's no usury statute, there's no usury. Now...if the rate gets REALLY fucking outrageous, like 75-80 percent, they might call it loansharking.

[angrycarpenter]

4. never had A card

"Never A borrower or lender be" was one of my mothers favorite sayings.
so I dutifully never sought A credit card. As A result have no credit of any kind. It is A shame that A person has sign up for the big loanshark program in their irresponsible 20s before he can get A car or house loan later in life.

[karlrschneider]

7. Admirable but not very smart. You won't be doing much travelling without one.

Not defending the system, just commenting on the reality.
edit for typo

[angrycarpenter]

11. not saying my mom was right

just stating reality

[karlrschneider]

12. No offense was intended...but the reality is that it's impossible to undertake

some ventures without a credit card. I could not do my job without one and neither could millions of others.

[angrycarpenter]

13. I know

It is part of reality I face everyday. I took no offence, I am just A bitter, bitter man.

[karlrschneider]

14. Hey, don't be bitter...get yourself a bucket of Apalachicola oysters, a six pack

and chow down. :D

Welcome to DU anyways...;-)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. The worst decision was when the USSC decided that the property

of drug dealers could be seized AND SOLD even before a conviction. I don't like drug dealers and I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but this decision said that there was a certain class of criminals who were not given the assumption of innocence and that their properties could be seized and sold even before a conviction.

First this class of criminals and then why not others? First they came for the . . . . ., we all know the parable. Why can't they just FREEZE assets of any criminal but wait for conviction before dispersing them? This is so fraught for potential abuse. This is setting the stage for they don't like political dissenters and someday they can seize and sell your property before a trial and conviction because you are an enemy of the state. Think I'm kidding? I'm not.

[annabanana]

8. And I'd bet big bucks that most people don't know this. . . . . n/t

[karlrschneider]

10. You can safely bet chiefs of police know about it. It's a bonanza for them.

This shit has been going on for a very long time. Back in the mid 80s my friend borrowed my car and got stopped for some bullshit reason (brake light not working...except it WAS working)...he had a baggie with about 3 grams of cannabis with him. They 'seized' MY car and it took me a month jumping through hoops and walking a thin line to get it back.
Lots of people weren't and aren't as fortunate as I was.
:mad:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. A terrible decision, no question.

But I think the most disastrous (at least since Dred Scott) was Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976, holding that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected speech.

Buckley makes meaningful campaign finance reform almost impossible.

[heart of darkness]

15. those are some bad ones..

but I have to go with Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, or at least how it ended up being interpreted. Corporate personhood has led to a lot of bad things, including, arguably, the worst parts of Buckley and the OP's case.

Dred Scott is pretty horrible.

[never_get_over_it]

18. And according to Thom Hartman

the corporate personhood wasn't even really in the decision itself but some kind of clerical error.

There have been some bad decisions - but really given the destruction in the past six and a half years Bush v. Gore is the WORST IMHO