Here’s a question you’re not supposed to ask:
Wall Street Strip
Is Paulson’s bailout bill unconstitutional?
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2008, at 1:43 PM ET Does the Constitution have any role in the intense debate and blowback surrounding Secretary Henry Paulson’s $700 billion bailout proposal? There is nothing in our founding document that prohibits taxing Peter (us) to pay Paul (Wall Street). There are constitutional principles, however, that speak to values such as oversight and transparency. Our system of checks and balances abhors a blank check.
And yet Secretary Paulson’s proposal contains a sweeping provision that utterly strips the courts of any power to review his decisions. Section 8 of the Paulson proposal reads: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
read the whole thing here.
I do have a quibble with this statement: “There is nothing in our founding document that prohibits taxing Peter (us) to pay Paul (Wall Street).”
I think a fair reading of the “General Welfare Clause” based on the intent of the Founders would prohibit taxing Peter to pay Paul. But I’ll conceded that unfortunately our Courts and politicians no longer hold the General Welfare Clause to be a limitation on government, but rather see it as the justification for unconstrained powers.