Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No need to get all hostile, KantLockeMeIn. It was a simple question.
As I said, I'm against the bailout, but considering how many times bailouts have been done in the past, I would think that if there was a question of the constutitionality of bailing out private enterprise it would have been brought up a long time ago. Thus my questioning of the blanket statement by the OP.
Now, as to the question "Is the wording on this specific bailout bill that was voted down unconstitutional?" That's another question entirely, but for unrelated reasons. I recall hearing that it placed restrictions on the court system that were constitutionally questionable.
But as for all giving money to shore up private enterprise being unconstitutional, consider this... Isn't that what the FDIC does? If you own a business or had a personal account and your bank you did your finances with goes belly up, I suppose you'd be against getting reimbursement by the FDIC on the ground that it's unconstitutional? Because that's basically what it is. Bailing out the bank account holders by giving them taxpayer money.
Of course, since I bank with a credit union, I don't have to worry about it.
No need to get all hostile, KantLockeMeIn. It was a simple question.
Not getting hostile... just looking for an answer.
Quote:
Now, as to the question "Is the wording on this specific bailout bill that was voted down unconstitutional?" That's another question entirely, but for unrelated reasons. I recall hearing that it placed restrictions on the court system that were constitutionally questionable.
The OP said giving taxpayer dollars to private firms is unconstitutional. I agree, it's somewhat vague, but I think we all get the point. Where in the Constitution does it state that the Congress is given the power to lend money to private organizations, or purchase assets of a private organization in order to stabilize the economy?
Quote:
But as for all giving money to shore up private enterprise being unconstitutional, consider this... Isn't that what the FDIC does? If you own a business or had a personal account and your bank you did your finances with goes belly up, I suppose you'd be against getting reimbursement by the FDIC on the ground that it's unconstitutional? Because that's basically what it is. Bailing out the bank account holders by giving them taxpayer money.
Because something is simply done does not provide justification for its constitutionality unless its constitutionality has been brought before the Supreme Court. With regards to the FDIC, I do not see it as constitutional. The SIPC, while not exactly an apples to apples comparison, is privately run and has a proven track record of providing similar guarantees.
Quote:
Of course, since I bank with a credit union, I don't have to worry about it.
No, you've gotta worry about the NCUA.
But, I'll help you out with your argument... debate is a good thing.
Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The general welfare clause may very well apply here. You'd need to determine and prove that the legislation is necessary for the general and not specific welfare of the people.
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures
Introducing liquidity is regulating the value... still doesn't get us very far as it allows us to introduce that liquidity, but not the authorization to transfer that liquidity to specific entities.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
So appropriations made by law are a valid use of drawing money from the treasury... we can infer it from the restrictive statement. But the appropriation itself must be constitutional, right?
So your strongest argument will be general welfare... which politicians have used to buy and sell this country for the past 70 years... so I see no reason for that one to stop anytime soon.
representative sherman is my hero, even if he is a democrat!!!! . this is a leader who americans have been waiting for. i hope that this thread stays on top of the forums so everybody can see why the bailout is a bad idea! they are trying to get it through the senate first to get some momentum.
Not getting hostile... just looking for an answer.
The OP said giving taxpayer dollars to private firms is unconstitutional. I agree, it's somewhat vague, but I think we all get the point. Where in the Constitution does it state that the Congress is given the power to lend money to private organizations, or purchase assets of a private organization in order to stabilize the economy?
Because something is simply done does not provide justification for its constitutionality unless its constitutionality has been brought before the Supreme Court. With regards to the FDIC, I do not see it as constitutional. The SIPC, while not exactly an apples to apples comparison, is privately run and has a proven track record of providing similar guarantees.
No, you've gotta worry about the NCUA.
But, I'll help you out with your argument... debate is a good thing.
Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The general welfare clause may very well apply here. You'd need to determine and prove that the legislation is necessary for the general and not specific welfare of the people.
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures
Introducing liquidity is regulating the value... still doesn't get us very far as it allows us to introduce that liquidity, but not the authorization to transfer that liquidity to specific entities.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
So appropriations made by law are a valid use of drawing money from the treasury... we can infer it from the restrictive statement. But the appropriation itself must be constitutional, right?
So your strongest argument will be general welfare... which politicians have used to buy and sell this country for the past 70 years... so I see no reason for that one to stop anytime soon.
good post, the general welfare clause was not really intended for private bank bailouts, but even if you want to try and make that case, bring in a number of economists, and debate the issue, dont force it on us in a closed door weekend meeting under the influence of donuts and diet coke.
They should put it up to a vote of the American people during the next election, which is just around the corner. I'm pretty confident the bailout would not be approved by the people. WE the people get to decide nothing, and pay for it all.
Using taxpayer dollars to bail out private firms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, keep calling Congress! You will regret allowing them to dump this crap on you amd your kids.
Great post...let's all call, but they probable won't answer our calls....but we can do at least something in the future....not voting for the once who are in favor so next time we have a new Congress!!!
Sen Tom Coburn just said this bill was unconstitutional. He made a very impassioned speech blasting Congress for their role. Then said he would vote for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. this is a leader who americans have been waiting for. i hope that this thread stays on top of the forums so everybody can see why the bailout is a bad idea! they are trying to get it through the senate first to get some momentum.
