Friday, June 05, 2009

The U.S. Constitution vs. The 111th Congress
Why is our Constitution being violated by the President and this current congressional body with out challenge?

I wouldn't even begin to profess to have much knowledge in constitutional law, but as long as this current "leadership" seems to NOT know much either, one has to ask the question: IS THIS LEGAL?

The (our) United States government recently purchased two automakers and have spent over thirty billion dollars in what they say is "authorized" money because of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Yesterday, Fred Lucas at CNS wrote that Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) claims that Congress was "specifically authorized" to spend this money:

Hoyer Claims Congress ‘Specifically Authorized’ Obama to Bail Out Auto Companies—Even Though Congress Specifically Declined to Pass Auto Bailout Bill

( - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D.-Md.) said at his press briefing yesterday that Congress “specifically authorized” the Obama administration to bail out the auto industry—thus legally justifying the government takeover of General Motors--even though the highly publicized and hotly debated auto bailout bill that Congress considered in December was defeated when it could not overcome a filibuster in the Senate.........LINK
When the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act” failed to pass in the Senate, the precedent should have been set that there was no congressional authorization for these funds. But, our democrat friends may by "piggy-backing" on a mistake that Bush made just before he left office:

"After it failed, President Bush unilaterally took $17.4 billion out of the TARP funds appropriated for “financial institutions” and used it to make “bridge loans” to Chrysler and General Motors. The move was criticized at the time by observers on both the right and the left, who called it illegal and
unconstitutional because the funds were not appropriated by Congress for the purpose that Bush used them for.
Please read the whole story at and return to leave me your interpretation of this possible infraction, (or should I say assault) on our constitution.

No comments: