The Feds did it under the interstate commerce clause. And if I remember right it was Reagan who overrode the state usury laws, in order to deal with the legacy of inflation that Jimmy Carter left him with. And when they did it, they bypassed a lot of state consumer protections.
constitutionality of anti-trust?
Probably the interstate commerce clause again. Regardless of the constitutionality, anti-trust laws have been on the books since the Great Depression, but only Democrats seem interested in enforcing them.
constitutionality of consumer protections?
I would think that simple anti-fraud statutes would provide all the authority for that, that is required. And to the extent that the Federal government regulates anything, like banks, through the interstate commerce clause, they have the authority and the responsibility to enforce the law.
"What is the constitutionality to identify and regulate AIG Credit Default Swaps?
Again, by the whatever authority that they Federal government set up the FDIC, SEC and regulated banks in the first place. Probably the interstate commerce clause.
"TARP should have never happened. It was unconstitutional."
TARP shouldn't have happend the way it did. But I believe some form of TARP was necessary or we would be in far worse straits than we are now. If TARP was unconstitutional, then I'd be in favor of a constitution amendment to allow Federal regulation of banks, the Federal Reserve and react to banking crises.
"The federal government was given the authority/privilege of coining money. ... That would be metal"
The only difference between paper and metal dug out of the ground is that metal is shiny. They both rely on consumer confidence to have any value. And as long as any form of lending is allowed, money creation in excess of the hard currency occurs. Go get a Macroeconomics book at a used bookstore to understand this better. It will explain it. The only way to achieve what you are advocating is no lending at all and a barter economy. No thanks
They have also used the interstate commerce clause to claim that they have the ability to regulate wheat a farmer grows on his farm to feed his animals. Like Clarence Thomas asked "What cannot be regulated under the interstate commerce clause." That is an excuse, not proper authority as far as I am concerned. They are also probably going to use interstate commerce clause as an excuse to try to force us to buy health insurance. It is not good that we have allowed them to get away from the original intent, which was to regulate interstate commerce, that is make it regular. That means set standard weights and other measures so it was regular and as efficient as possible.
Regardless of the constitutionality ...
Are you freaking kidding me? Your argument is basically, we've been doing evil for a long time, so we might as well continue? One definition of tradition is "an error that is continually compounded".
Again, by the whatever authority that they Federal government set up the FDIC, SEC and regulated banks in the first place.
I don't believe they had that authority and I don't believe the SEC or FDIC should exist. Practially speaking, the FDIC is currently insolvent and it will not get better for them.
TARP shouldn't have happend the way it did. But I believe some form of TARP was necessary or we would be in far worse straits than we are now.
So basically, you believed the propaganda.
The only difference between paper and metal dug out of the ground is that metal is shiny.
Wow. Where to start with this? The paper money in question is backed by nothing. Metal is something. Paper can be backed by something, but that only works if market forces are allowed to work and banks are allowed to fail if they try to defraud the public. The paper/electronic money we use today is devalued at whim. That is theft. The dollar has lost 95% of its value since the Federal Reserve system was created. Gold is still gold. Silver is still silver. In case you can't figure it out, and I wouldn't be surprised if you can't, I am not a gold bug. I don't like fiat currency, whatever it is. Let the market forces work and people will find the money that works. Traditionally that has worked out to be gold or silver over millenia of human existence.
The only way to achieve what you are advocating is no lending at all and a barter economy. No thanks
Wow. You really don't know what a barter economy is. It isn't a barter economy if you use money, whether that's paper deposit certificates, federal reserve notes, or silver.
You know, not everything you read in a book is correct. Especially stuff you read in a macroeconomics voodoo textbook.