The Mother of all Bailouts and the 10th Amendment
03. Oct, 2008 
8 Comments
by Savage Baptist, No Blog of Significance
Look, here’s the text of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Simple enough, ain’t it? If the Constitution does not give a power to the United States, that is, to the Imperial Federal Government, it doesn’t have it.
Such powers belong either to the States or to the people (by which you can tell that the States and the people are not the same thing, which is why U.S. Senators were originally elected by the state legislatures, and which means that the States now have no representation in Washington, but that’s another subject…).
So tell me: where in the United States Constitution is the Imperial Federal Government delegated power to buy up toxic debt from private banks?
(Cricket sounds.)
Really, we ought not to be asking what Washington should do about the bank crisis before asking what Washington is allowed to do.
But then, if we were in the habit of asking that question, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and so many other problem children would never have existed in the first place, would they?
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Great post Savage. Why are so few of us speaking out about this?
Where is it in the Constitution that the federal government has to provide health care for everyone?
“So tell me: where in the United States Constitution is the Imperial Federal Government delegated power to buy up toxic debt from private banks?”
translates to:
“So tell me: where in the United States Constitution is the Imperial Federal Government delegated power to make purchases from private organizations?”
since that what it is. As much as I disagree with the bailout, it is inane to act like this is something other than a purchase from private organizations, as is the case with (for example) arms manufacturers. Now, what the government happens to be purchasing is essentially worthless, if not worse, so it’s something of a bad trade, in my opinion, but I can’t see how that makes it unconstitutional.
“since that what it is. As much as I disagree with the bailout, it is inane to act like this is something other than a purchase from private organizations, as is the case with (for example) arms manufacturers. Now, what the government happens to be purchasing is essentially worthless, if not worse, so it’s something of a bad trade, in my opinion, but I can’t see how that makes it unconstitutional.”
There is no power granted by the Constitution that allows the Federal government to tax people for the purposes of propping up private industries. There is a difference between purchasing equipment for the purposes of something like maintaining a Navy (which is a Constitutional role of the government) and purchasing bad debt for the sake of meddling in the economy (not a Constitutional role). That is the difference.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
“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;”
Not having a 1929 like meltdown of the banks, would fall under the umbrella of the General welfare of the country regardless of how badly handled and poorly executed it was.
RatFink – good comment, and this is a very common question.
Article 1, section 8 absolutely starts out how you’ve written here, but it’s followed by the 18 things that congress is authorized to do to carry out those duties you’ve listed here.
The other option is to define it like you have. But then, “general welfare” will always be defined by whomever has more power.
For example, one decade could see bailouts as for the general welfare, another could require participation in a government run health care program, another could see religious zealots claiming that mandatory church attendance is best for the general welfare, or just about anything.
The bottom line question is pretty simple – who defines what’s general welfare, and what happens if those people define it differently than you?
The general welfare clause can and is only applied to the powers delegated by the constitution to the Government. If the powers are not delegated, than that part of general welfare can not be applied. Bailout, subsidizes, welfare, medicare and medcaid etc are not part of the delegated powers for the Federal Government, but they could be part of the powers retained by the states and certainly the people. If wish to subsidize a poor smuck of a farmer or banker, that is my right and the responsibility of my actions falls on me and no one else.
Hu – an excellent point. The people created the federal government as their agent for certain enumerated powers only. In order to carry out those powers – which are specifically listed in the constitution – the people authorized the government to use what we would call implied powers…but only if they were absolutely essential for carrying out the expressly delegated power.