Some Ask if Bailout Is Unconstitutional

New York Times ^ | January 16, 2009 | John Schwartz

[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.”

[Publius6961]

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

[Publius6961]

Unenumerated, anonymous amendment?

Undocumented amendment... aka "penumbra."

[Publius6961]

Thank you for posting that link.
I was looking for that a few minutes ago.

[EBH]

...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.

[Fitzy_888]

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