Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Ask if Bailout Is Unconstitutional
New York Times ^ | January 16, 2009 | John Schwartz

Posted on 01/16/2009 10:37:19 AM PST by reaganaut1

While much of the debate over the $700 billion federal bailout plan has focused on whether the money is being spent wisely or well, concerns are growing among many conservatives about its constitutionality.

Some conservatives have argued that the law creating the program, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which Congress passed hastily in October, violates constitutional principles that limit the amount of power that lawmakers can delegate to the executive branch.

They also maintain that the enormous bailout plan has illegally grown beyond its original focus on the financial services industry to include a bailout of the auto industry and more.

Robert A. Levy, the chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization in Washington, said in an interview that the bailout program, which goes by the acronym TARP for Troubled Assets Relief Program, goes beyond the realm of delegation the courts should allow. Mr. Levy said that earlier cases had found such delegation was appropriate if Congress laid down “an intelligible principle” that provided clear guidance to an agency or a regulator. But that, he said, is precisely what is missing in the bailout.

“There’s no intelligible principle that I could discern,” Mr. Levy said.

Now the FreedomWorks Foundation, which was founded in 1984 and declares itself to be “leading the fight for lower taxes, less government and more freedom,” says it plans to file a lawsuit against the program.

The group’s chairman is Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader. A memorandum the group distributed to Congress on Thursday laid out its argument that “when Congress delegates so much authority to the executive branch with so few rules to guide its discretion, Congress unconstitutionally transfers its lawmaking power to the executive.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bailout; cato; dickarmey; freedomworks; tarp
The FreedomWorks report is here .
1 posted on 01/16/2009 10:37:19 AM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Of course it's un-Constitutional.

Anyone who even needs to ask the question is a drooling moron. The only bigger drooling morons are the ones who vote for it anyway.

Like Senator McCain for instance.

L

2 posted on 01/16/2009 10:38:23 AM PST by Lurker ("America is at that awkward stage. " Claire Wolfe, call your office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

This bail out crap is such a cluster.....doom on those involved. Hope they hang em all !


3 posted on 01/16/2009 10:41:19 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Well, shucks, we’ve got an unconstitutional President-elect, and an unconstitutional Congress. Why would we expect their legislative output to be anything but unconstitutional?


4 posted on 01/16/2009 10:42:27 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Yes. It is. Giving our tax money to banks and unprofitable private enterprise is unconstitutional


5 posted on 01/16/2009 10:43:10 AM PST by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Congress is supposed to provide for the common defense and the general welfare not private welfare.


6 posted on 01/16/2009 10:43:54 AM PST by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Of course it's unconstitutional! That's the way the 545 jackasses in Washington DO things.

Meanwhile all the rest uf us Americans suffer.

Cursed banker mentality!

7 posted on 01/16/2009 10:44:04 AM PST by FixitGuy (By their fruits shall ye know them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“Some Ask if Bailout Is Unconstitutional”

Of course it is.
Most government spending is.


8 posted on 01/16/2009 10:45:20 AM PST by HereInTheHeartland (I can't wait for January 20, 2013")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Unenumerated, anonymous amendment?


9 posted on 01/16/2009 10:45:53 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Just contracts; just laws; just a constitution...
10 posted on 01/16/2009 10:46:47 AM PST by LRS (Just contracts; just laws; just a constitution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

>> The only bigger drooling morons are the ones who vote for it anyway. Like Senator McCain for instance.

And, sadly, like my own Sen. Cornyn (R, TX). Cornyn is turning into more of a RINO every day.


11 posted on 01/16/2009 10:50:33 AM PST by Nervous Tick (I've left Cynical City... bound for Jaded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
What could possibly be more "general welfare" than a shiny new automobile. They are going to pay all those UAW people enough to absorb the entire production for the next ten years, aren't they?
12 posted on 01/16/2009 10:52:03 AM PST by An Old Man (Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Well can someone sue and get it destroyed before it destroys the greatest economic success story on earth?


13 posted on 01/16/2009 10:52:09 AM PST by Marie2 (Hunkered down until something better comes along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Our whole freakin’ Government has become UnConstitutional!


14 posted on 01/16/2009 10:52:39 AM PST by mkcc30 (He died for us let's live for him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

I wonder, on the enableing legislation for TARP, what Constitutional authority Congress pointed to that authorizes this legislation?

Interstate Commerce?


15 posted on 01/16/2009 10:57:29 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Of course it’s unconstitutional. Just like 90% of the rest of the babbling, stinking horses**t the federal government does.


16 posted on 01/16/2009 10:58:01 AM PST by JamesP81 (Let the Great RINO Hunt of 2009 begin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
It undoubtedly emanated from a penumbra.

L

17 posted on 01/16/2009 11:04:35 AM PST by Lurker ("America is at that awkward stage. " Claire Wolfe, call your office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Well, we had a banker go to the Congress and tell them that if they didn’t pass the bill (without even reading it, of course), there would be martial law.

Written between the lines is the following threat:
Give us whatever we want or the bank doors will not open tomorrow and YOU get to deal with it.

Somehow I don’t think that was what the founders intended...

Sound Constitutional to anybody out there?


18 posted on 01/16/2009 11:05:00 AM PST by djf (< Tagline closed until further notice. Awaiting bailout >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM
we’ve got an unconstitutional President-elect, and an unconstitutional Congress. Why would we expect their legislative output to be anything but unconstitutional?

Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to!

19 posted on 01/16/2009 11:06:15 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I *LOVE* my Attitude Problem - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM
we’ve got an unconstitutional President-elect, and an unconstitutional Congress. Why would we expect their legislative output to be anything but unconstitutional?

Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to!
The Constitution is dead.

20 posted on 01/16/2009 11:06:45 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I *LOVE* my Attitude Problem - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Yes absolutly it is!!!!!


21 posted on 01/16/2009 11:13:23 AM PST by stockpirate (A people unwilling to use violent force to remain free deserves the despot they are ruled by.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

That it is unconstitutional is irrelevant. Our rulers are not even considering the constitutional issues involved. Not once have I heard or read that Bush, Paulson, Cheney, Hussein, Reid, Pelosi or anyone in a position of real power has even brought up the constitution as a serious matter for discussion in regards to the current expansion of government.

The only time our rulers invoke the constitution is when they think they can use it for political advantage. But this tactic is waning rapidly as our rulers have come to understand that the vast majority of the electorate either don’t understand what they are talking about or don’t care.

The constitution is now whatever our rulers say it is. It has no intrinsic meaning. Our rulers find rights where there are none and abrogate rights that are clearly stated in the document. We are now a nation ruled by caprice and political fad. This is a recipe for chaos and, eventually, tyranny and rebellion.

Hussein’s election is not the beginning of the end of the American experiment. It is the end of the end.


22 posted on 01/16/2009 11:17:54 AM PST by scory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Not sure what they used to further their sedition. What they do not realize is they are trying to herd cats !

Ain’t gonna work......


23 posted on 01/16/2009 11:18:57 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man

Progressives think that there is a constitutional right to health care, jobs where you live, housing and food.


24 posted on 01/16/2009 11:20:36 AM PST by griswold3 (a good story is more compelling than the search for truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

a really good article that sums up my feelings on the government deciding how to be charitable with my money.

http://notyourstogive.com/


25 posted on 01/16/2009 11:23:22 AM PST by robjna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
We are no longer a nation of laws.

We have progressed regressed from our Constitutional Republic form of government to rule by a coterie of elites who govern by feeling and whim, ignoring the constitution and constitutional laws.

26 posted on 01/16/2009 11:24:00 AM PST by Iron Munro (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griswold3
You might want to read this: The Duties of Government by: Kenneth Jupp, where you will find:

The prime duties of government are three. First, to protect the national territory; secondly to preserve peace within its boundaries; and thirdly to ensure that every family unit of the nation has space in the nation's territory for a home and a means of livelihood The first two of these duties arc recognised today, but are inadequately performed because of the neglect of the third. Any family which lacks a home and a livelihood must either perish, or be an incubus on the rest of society, supported by charity, as in former times, or as in modern times, by poor relief provided by the state and funded by the taxpayer.

27 posted on 01/16/2009 11:46:41 AM PST by An Old Man (Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
concerns are growing among many conservatives about its constitutionality.

Because only conservatives are concerned about The Constitution?

28 posted on 01/16/2009 11:48:47 AM PST by capydick ("History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
The Govt gave 130 BILLION to Bank of America at Midnight. The govt doing business at Midnight has got to be unconstitutional.
29 posted on 01/16/2009 11:49:45 AM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

Of course, your correct.....a given !

Stay safe !


30 posted on 01/16/2009 11:54:00 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Nearly everything the Republican and Democratic party are doing now days are unConstitutional. That old paper doesn’t slow them down a bit.


31 posted on 01/16/2009 11:54:08 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Join the Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Un-Constitutional? According to our left-leaning politicans no such concept exists on *their* end on the political spectrum. But on the right? Whoa! Everything there is un-Constitutional!


32 posted on 01/16/2009 11:54:28 AM PST by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robjna
That is a terriffic story!

In my never ending quest to read to the end of the Internet, I found this little bit of trivia over at The LA Times I hope you like it.

The line that wants to be a headline: "I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers," he said.

Guess who said that!

33 posted on 01/16/2009 11:59:44 AM PST by An Old Man (Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
since they refuse to tell us who gets money and how much, yet demand the taxes from us... this behavior was known by the founders. it was called:

Taxation without Representation

34 posted on 01/16/2009 12:06:49 PM PST by sten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man

‘an excluded class of families who are denied the opportunity to provide for themselves’

No one should be ‘denied’ opportunity based on abilities. Meaning someone earning $7K should have a home priced $350K.

‘But land can be paid for by those who occupy it’

There should be payment. Not something for nothing.

The difference being that the ‘progressives’ think their ‘rights’ should be given to them by the government for merely existing as an American citizen.


35 posted on 01/16/2009 12:08:06 PM PST by griswold3 (a good story is more compelling than the search for truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

That sadly ceased to matter years ago.


36 posted on 01/16/2009 12:15:17 PM PST by SlapHappyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Oh yes,, without any doubt. Under that old constitution, the one we used to use in the Beaver Cleaver days, it would have been completely forbidden!

That was a good constitution. I remember it warmly, We should use it again someday if we get a chance.


37 posted on 01/16/2009 12:19:48 PM PST by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

Wicker v Filburn took a long way towarn unlimited government. A great deal of sedition is couched as “pertaining to interstate commerce” such as laws regulating your 20 year old firearm that is not for sale.

BS needs to end.


38 posted on 01/16/2009 12:47:46 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: robjna

Thanks for sharing that. It was a good read. If only our elected officials held that same belief.


39 posted on 01/16/2009 1:43:26 PM PST by Marmolade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

It will and again it will be the working man and woman that foots the bill !


40 posted on 01/16/2009 2:10:25 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Some Ask if Bailout Is Unconstitutional

Of course it's unconstitutional!

As long ago as...

In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. Someone stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James madison

41 posted on 01/16/2009 3:54:43 PM PST by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Unenumerated, anonymous amendment?

Undocumented amendment... aka "penumbra."

42 posted on 01/16/2009 3:57:42 PM PST by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: robjna
Thank you for posting that link.
I was looking for that a few minutes ago.
43 posted on 01/16/2009 4:20:26 PM PST by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

...That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to Washington DC, and that all political connection between them and the State of Washington DC, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.


44 posted on 01/16/2009 4:29:29 PM PST by EBH ( Directive 10-289)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robjna

Good article.

“We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.” -Congressman Col. David Crockett

“I have always supported measures and principles and not men.” -Congressman Col. David Crockett

“I would rather be politically dead than hypocritically immortalized.” -Congressman Col. David Crockett

“I would rather be beaton and be a man than to be elected and be a little puppy dog.” -Congressman Col. David Crockett

“You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.” -Congressman Col. David Crockett


45 posted on 01/16/2009 5:24:15 PM PST by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson