Bailout Unconstitutional Judge Andrew Napolitano

[jaime]

9/25/08, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who we often see as a commentator, spoke about constitutional law.  Specifically, there are 2 clauses in the constitution that are being violated should the bailout go forward.  I dvr'd this and got every word he said.  Here goes:

"Someone would have to challenge it before a judge but this is absolutely inconsistent with the constitution.  There are a couple of clauses in the constitution that prohibit this.  The constitution requires the gov't treat everyone equally.So, if one business is failing and the Congress wants to bail it out, it has to bail out other businesses that are failingand there's not enough money to do that.

There's another clause in the constitution that says that you have to do things not specifically to benefit individuals, but to benefit everyone.  It is called The General Welfare clause.  These 2 clauses were intended to prevent the United States Treasury from becoming a public trothand when people go to Congress with their hat in hand and Congress gives away taxpayer money, that's exactly the opposite of the restraints built into the constitution.

[Fox News 9/25/08 w/Neil Cavuto]


Any thoughts on this please?  Does anyone understand why Geraldo Rivera disagrees with Judge Andrew Napolitano?

[cjd]

I heard someone else speak about this this evening and it sounds credible. I also think they may have provisions that would allow them to override it in times of crisis. Also I think it would make a difference how the deal is structured. If the government can show it would be making a potential profit on the loans it may be workable. Another interesting thing I heard was that although the initial cost of the bail out is said to be 700 billion when all is said and done it may turn out to be quite a bit less and may even turn out profitable for the government should things go right.

[Roadwarrior]

He is trying to earn his consultants fee and he's a lawyer ...

Undeclared wars  are unconstitutional
but they arent challenged judicially or at least successfully,

Eminent Domain is unconstitutional  and it still stands ...

I honestly dont think this is going anywhere

The key word here is "crisis"  as cjd said.   

[jaime]

I heard someone else speak about this this evening and it sounds credible. I also think they may have provisions that would allow them to override it in times of crisis. Also I think it would make a difference how the deal is structured. If the government can show it would be making a potential profit on the loans it may be workable. Another interesting thing I heard was that although the initial cost of the bail out is said to be 700 billion when all is said and done it may turn out to be quite a bit less and may even turn out profitable for the government should things go right.

thank you for your interesting post cjd.  i heard so many people are still so angry today.  i am less angry today about this and your post certainly helps those of us having such a hard time understanding it.  it was 'reported' [they get things wrong a lot!] that Paulsen was appalled that he was not handed the $700 B ...or something to that effect.  Last evening, I heard they would do it by giving out smaller loans to begin with and I heard it again today.  I am softening my stance against this bailout due to the fact students won't be able to get loans, people can't buy cars and Maxine Waters (D-CA) said that banks would certainly sit down with people who are having trouble paying their mortgages/loans back under this bailout, if they would go to their bank, expain their situation, and the banks would work with them.  She was quite optimistic about it and it sounded like she knew what she was talking about.   Chrysler wanted $25 B today.  Some guest said, "Everyone's get their tin cup out."  It might have been the senator from Alabama (R), but I'm not positive.  too much info and i find all of this tiring.  I wish our lives would return to normal again 

[Lubab]

I heard someone else speak about this this evening and it sounds credible. I also think they may have provisions that would allow them to override it in times of crisis. Also I think it would make a difference how the deal is structured. If the government can show it would be making a potential profit on the loans it may be workable. Another interesting thing I heard was that although the initial cost of the bail out is said to be 700 billion when all is said and done it may turn out to be quite a bit less and may even turn out profitable for the government should things go right.

How could this possibly wind up being profitable for the government!? These are not loans to be repayed. These are handouts.

[ape]

If they're going to bail these $#!! firms out, THEY GOT TO LIMIT EXECUTIVE SALARIES. Our tax dollars will fund these billionaires, and they're getting paid billion dollar salaries.

IS THIS RIGHT???