Kevin_Kennedy
Defend Liberty
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,553
- 1,923
- 245
I have a feeling we aren't going to agree on this. The federal government, imo, has a duty to provide for the general welfare of the country. Therefore they are within their rights to seize institutions that threaten the stability of the country until that time that they no longer pose a threat.It also doesn't say they can't.
Does the constitution give authority to take control of failing banks?
That's not how the Constitution works. Only those powers stated in the Constitution are legitimate powers of the federal government.
No.
You can disagree with me whether or not you think they should have the power to take over these institutions, but I'm not sure you can disagree with it being unconstitutional. The general welfare clause was not meant to give the federal government the authority to do whatever it wants so long as it can make an argument that it's in the general welfare of the nation. The framers of the Constitution specifically listed what the powers of the federal government are, and taking over private businesses was not included in that list. If they feel that that's necessary, and I'd disagree with them, then they are free to attempt to pass an amendment to the Constitution which would then give them that authority.