Your comment of the bailouts being
"rather distasteful"is illuminating.
Is that the harshest criticisim you can muster up of "The Bailouts"?
You certianly are in the minority of The U.S. citizens then, as recent polling found over 70% disagreed with the plan. thinkprogress.org...
68% of citizens think that the bailout funds are going to those same who caused the meltdown in the firstplace!
Regardless of anyones opinions this threads focus is on Defending the Constitution, not defending opinions.
Do you rely on the New York Times only as your constitutional law source? Just because the New York times quotes someone in defense of "The Bailouts" does not deem the extortion of the taxpayers constitutional.
To legitimately invoke the commerce power, Congress must show not only that a federal program is necessary, but also that it is proper-that is, the program does not violate other foundational principles, such as federalism, separation of powers, and limited government. Congress has not made that showing.www.cato.org...
Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers ... shall be vested in a Congress." A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paul son Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.
[edit on 11-10-2009 by burntheships]