Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution

[TigerDak]

Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution outlines some of the powers of Congress that helps to explain some of what we are seeing today with this new bailout package. I have bolded what I thought might reference their responsibilities. Clearly, it is the role of the federal government to establish a monetary policy, which includes managing the value of our currency as well as the money supply, and it is Congress' job to regulate commerce. If anyone thinks that it is not the role of the government to regulate commerce and protect the general welfare of the US, I'd like to hear their position.

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[searcheagle]

Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution outlines some of the powers of Congress that helps to explain some of what we are seeing today with this new bailout package. I have bolded what I thought might reference their responsibilities. Clearly, it is the role of the federal government to establish a monetary policy, which includes managing the value of our currency as well as the money supply, and it is Congress' job to regulate commerce. If anyone thinks that it is not the role of the government to regulate commerce and protect the general welfare of the US, I'd like to hear their position.

No body is arguing that Congress doesn't have the authority to regulate commerce or protect the general welfare of the US. I know of NO arguments by anyone arguing this since the Constitutional Convention of 1783.

Show me where this article permits the Federal Government to act as a bank and loan Money or purchase those types of assets. Article 1 Section 8 doesn't. The reference to To borrow money on the credit of the United States; obviously refers to the ability of the federal government to take out a loan-not make one.

James Madison, the Writer and Father of the Constitution, and 4th President said:
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, and 3rd President said "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Both of these quotes are found on this website:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[acyckowski]

I don't know there's any real argument against the authority of Congress to do what they're doing. Searcheagle raises good points about "general welfare," which I happen to agree with ideologically, but 200+ years of judicial precedent also have to be considered.

I don't remember if the S&L bailout in the 80's ever made it to the Supreme Court, but it's pretty much the Courts prerogative to check the powers of Congress, and I don't see how this situation is different except in scale. If the Courts have already decided on this, or refused to consider it, it'll be awfully hard to stop it.

The part that's bad is less the government's authority then the government's competence. It's bad enough that some folks want the entire health care system turned over to the geniuses who run the DMV and TSA, now we want them to take over a significant chunk of the financial sector. The same people, by the way, who forced mortgage companies by regulation and bully tactics to offer high-risk loans at low-risk rates. So excuse us if we the taxpayers aren't all that thrilled with these clowns being put in charge of something that actually affects our financial well-being.

[DrEast]

There is some question about the authority of Congress to delegate its money-making authority to the Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel.

But even granting that authority, there's so many better, more responsible ways to manage money than fractional reserve lending! As we're about to find out, yet again.

[searcheagle]

I don't know there's any real argument against the authority of Congress to do what they're doing. Searcheagle raises good points about "general welfare," which I happen to agree with ideologically, but 200+ years of judicial precedent also have to be considered.

I don't remember if the S&L bailout in the 80's ever made it to the Supreme Court, but it's pretty much the Courts prerogative to check the powers of Congress, and I don't see how this situation is different except in scale. If the Courts have already decided on this, or refused to consider it, it'll be awfully hard to stop it.

The part that's bad is less the government's authority then the government's competence. It's bad enough that some folks want the entire health care system turned over to the geniuses who run the DMV and TSA, now we want them to take over a significant chunk of the financial sector. The same people, by the way, who forced mortgage companies by regulation and bully tactics to offer high-risk loans at low-risk rates. So excuse us if we the taxpayers aren't all that thrilled with these clowns being put in charge of something that actually affects our financial well-being.

The Congress, the Presidency, and the Courts have been largely ignoring the Constitution since 1942. In that year, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a man's personal use of his own crops aka his garden under the clause of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT!

Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. The Department of Agriculture had set production quotas. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his government allotment. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. He was fined anyway. The court reasoned that had he not grown the extra wheat he would have had to purchase wheat -- therefore, he was indirectly affecting interstate commerce.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And Don't forget the case of Kelo vs the City of New London where the Supreme Court ruled that a city could use imminent domain to increase their tax base, by giving private land over to a private developer. They also ruled this qualified as "public use," and took away taking away private property rights.

Numerous groups fought against this ruling including the Institute for Justice, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Libertarian Party.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.