Re: House Of Lies: How Congress Failed To Protect Our Economy

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Peter Franks wrote:
>
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, let's move onto the next item.  Since the bailout is for the
>>>> general Welfare, and presuming that it is constitutional based on
>>>> supreme Court opinion, what is the constitutionality of the CRA and
>>>> subsequent legislation?  The effects of that legislation have
>>>> resulted in general Disaster, does that imply that it was
>>>> unconstitutional?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not under Butler and its progeny, if you really care about that.
>>
>>
>> So, do you agree that the CRA has resulted in general non-welfare?
>
> No.  That's an unsettled controversy which I have no interest in
> debating.  However regardless of the result, it's constitutional under
> Butler, etc.

But it is unconstitutional under the general Welfare clause.

See, we have yet another problem w/ the principle of parsing out
constitutional phrases to suit an agenda.  Taxing and implied spending
was originally intended to be a means by which the federal government
could "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
States".  Parsing it out leads to legislation that is presumed
constitutional on one hand, but unconstitutional on another.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]