>>Chrysler was already dead in the ditch. They had their chance and they didn't take it.
>>
>>And you have, once again, not addressed the point that Obama was in violation of contract law when he forced the bond holders to take 29 cents on the dollar. According to the law, the bond holders were first in line to collect when Chrysler went into chapter 11. Is it because you do not have a good answer for this obvious shredding of our constituion by our presdident?
>
>Chrysler was going under either way.
>
>Is that really in the Constitution? Are you sure?

From Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution : The Powers of Congress
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States"

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a reorganization plan. When sales of assets are involved there is an order of priority to establish who gets paid back their initial investment. That order of priority is :
1. secured debtholders
2. unsecured debtholders
3. stockholders

The reorganization plan put forth in Chrysler's case gave priority to unsecured debtholders over secured, thus violating the US bankruptcy code which is set forth by Congress as is their duty under the US Constitution.

The fact that the appellate court upheld this reorganization plan is appalling, only to be outdone by the Supreme Court who chose not to hear the case, thus upholding a legal precedent for ignoring the order of priorities clause in the US Code. Think it through. Secured debtholders are no guaranteed the security of their contracts. That's the main reason for becoming a secured debtholder in the first place, be it a bondholder or bank. You agree to the loan at a lower rate to secure your repayment of principal. If that principal is no longer guaranteed, why accept the lower rate? The legal ramifications are tremendous because despite the administration's claims that this was a "special" case, the law doesn't work that way.