Bailing Out of the Constitution

Washington Post ^ | March 29, 2009 | George Will

[libstripper]

It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.

By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do anything else with the money -- even, say, subsidize automobile companies -- well, whatever."

[libstripper]

Good luck, George. You'll need to find a potential plaintiff with standing.

[jdege]

Congress has been unconstitutionally turning over legislative authority to the executive at least since 1913. Our entire regulatory government - the concept that agencies can issue regulations that have the force of law without the specific action by Congress - is a violation of the non-delegation principle.

The non-delegation principle is simple - if a party is delegated an authority by another, that party cannot delegate that authority to a third. It was a part of the common law since the beginning, and was a staple of Constitutional jurisprudence, and has never been overturned. We just decided one day to pretend it had never existed.

[Loud Mime]

When the Democrats wanted to question Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton they undertook another unconstitutional move. James Madison said such an intrusion into the affairs of another branch of government was the very definition of a despotic government.

The Constitution means nothing to the Democrats. Get used to it; we’re in for a long four years.

[Tarpon]

The bailouts or rich targets for fraud ... And all of this money going to community organizer, ‘Hitler youth core-ACORN crap, I doubt that is Constitutional either.

Most of what is being done would not pass Constitutional muster, which is very likely why the libtards in COngress are attacking the Supreme Court justices. Nothing happens with libtards without being planned.

[Safrguns]

Good luck, George. You'll need to find a potential plaintiff with standing.

I'm glad you said this. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people caught the connection.

Elections have consequences. Everybody knows that. But they fail to realize just what those consequences are. In this case, It is certainly the marginalization of our constitution.

For those who didn't catch the connection, this nation of whiners has just elected it's first illegal alien as president of the United States... and when his qualifications were challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, the "Supreme" court refused to hear it because the plaintiff did not have "standing" (stake?) in the case.

In short, SCOTUS PUNTED!!!! They punted the constitution they swore to defend right out the window.

SCOTUS IS CLEARLY NOW A POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.

If we cannot defend the subversion of our constitution by one man.... what makes us think that it can be defended from the full body of the legislature?

A law is only as good as it's ability to be enforced.

I wonder how big our debt will have to become before enough Americans start refusing to pay the bill, making our cracker-jack tax code as unenforceable as they have made our constitution?

[sickoflibs]

Roosevelt re-made the constitution the socialist constitution by replacing all the justices. Anything in the name of the ‘collective’ people.

[NTHockey]

No, first you’ll have to find a lawyer with cojones.

[HighlyOpinionated]

Please email your CongressCritters urging them to read The Constitution and The Federalist Papers at your every convenience. (At least once a day, preferably more.) Email Chairman Michael Steele (Chairman@gop.com) stressing same. Email Michele Bachmann and tell her you support her and appreciate her defense of The Constitution.


"Ironically, the Tea Act had nothing to do with the American colonies but everything to do with rescuing the East India Company from bankruptcy: the result of the legislation was the loss of the American colonies." Marjie Bloy Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, National University of Singapore

[slowhandluke]

With appropriate link. This is too good a comment not to have appropriate links:

"Ironically, the Tea Act had nothing to do with the American colonies but everything to do with rescuing the East India Company from bankruptcy: the result of the legislation was the loss of the American colonies." —From Marjie Bloy