Skip to comments.“Getting Around Congress?” It’s Much Worse than That
Posted on 04/20/2009 11:43:14 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Getting Around Congress? Its Much Worse than That
by John Armor (632 words)
The Treasury Department announced today that it would convert its preferred stock in the nations largest banks into common stock. The stated advantages were that this would allow Treasury to aid more banks without going back to Congress for more money than what was already approved. Some Administration officials even said that this would get around Congress.
That alone would be bad enough. But the actual meaning of this action subverts the entire Constitution and is an assault on the American people. It is a take-over of American government, similar to the take-overs that occur every month or so, in tin-pot dictatorships around the world.
Harsh charges. Here is the evidence:
The Constitution does not give the President of the United States the power to spend a single dime. Nor does it give such power to the Supreme Court. The power to raise money (through taxes) and to spend that money on governmental purposes is given solely to Congress, in Article I.
There are times when the President or the Chief Justice are able to spend money by their own decision. But such events occur ONLY when Congress has previously acted to authorize such spending,
Anyone who has ever read the Constitution, or even anyone who has ever heard the song on School House Rock, Im just a Bill, knows this is true.
Article I lists the specific powers of Congress, a list that has long been violated, but thats not todays subject. Then, it lists the restraints on Congress powers, including this in Section 9:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
What does the word appropriation mean? It means that Congress must state an amount of money, and also state the purpose for which it is to be spent. The statement of a purpose is just as important as the amount.
Could Congress legitimately pass a law that said, We appropriate $1 trillion dollars for the Treasury Secretary, for him and the President to spend for the improvement of the nations economy, as they see fit? Such a law would be unconstitutional because it abdicates Congress mandatory role in the nations finances.
Why is this also an attack on the American people? First, as the Declaration of Independence states, governments derive their just powers only from the consent of the governed. This latest financial move by the Obama Administration is designed to cut Congress, and the people who voted for Congress, out of the political equation.
The Constitution also speaks to this point. It provides in Article I that all revenue bills (that means taxes) must originate in the House of Representatives. Remember that when the Constitution was written, the House was the only point at which popular will, actual voting by citizens, took place. Senators were them elected by the State legislatures; Presidents were elected by independent members of the Electoral College.
The experience of other governments, beginning with England but including dozens of others, boiled down to this: the people do not have control of their government unless they elect their own representatives, who in turn have the power of the purse. The House of Representatives was originally given that power, but the Obama Administration is now stealing that power away.
The theft is not occurring wholesale, since the mainstream media might notice and comment. It is happening retail, a mere trillion dollars at a time. It is now five hours since the Treasury Department announced this change. No one anywhere in the media has, according to my Internet searches, even bothered to ask whether this is constitutional.
The take-over has begun. What will we do about it?
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is a former Professor of Political Science and a 33-year member of the Supreme Court Bar. He also attended a Tea Party last Wednesday, and will keep attending them until the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court start obeying the Constitution.
- 30 -
John / Billybob / Ben
Read and distribute as fast as you can.
Perhaps. But right on the mark.
BB, it’s like the Mafia declaring that they are now your ‘partner’ in a business you thought you owned. It’s not too long before you are no longer a partner and the Mafia has walked off with the whole shebang.
Schadenfreude will be cold comfort when time shows that the gov’t can’t run the businesses they take over. If they are ever re-privatized look for well-connected oligarchs like Soros, Pritzker, et al, to wind up with the prizes.
All the bravery in the U.S. is in Afganistan or Iraq..
BRILLIANT really.. Who's to stop the Coup D'etat..
How can the Administration do that?
When I was in the securities business, decisions of this nature were made by the Board of Directors and had to be approved by the vote of shareholders before being implemented.
The golden rule!!! Those with the gold makes the rules!!
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.