Freedom Fighters! Do not miss this!!!!!

[fahayek]

I know everyone here feels like we are on the edge of losing our Republic to power hungry socialist politicians who feel they know what is best for our well being when we know they are dead wrong. We need to start questioning whether or not what's going on is constitutional! We need to raise these issues in the Supreme Court and see what they think. I need people to help coordinate the process. We need constitutional lawyers, funds, etc. We need to get the ball rolling because I feel like we don't have much time before we start seeing the iron curtain coming down.

We need to email people like Judge Napolitano, Glen Beck, Ron Paul.......anybody who really gives a fuck about freedom and let them know we need help. Ron Paul is not going to come out and tell us to rise up but we know he is waiting for us to do it. We need to first question the constitutionality of what is going down.

Please help me because I feel like I am backed into a corner and don't know where or who to turn to. Don't leave me hangin' because I don't want to go in alone.

[eredeath]

char

[fahayek]

I just emailed Judge Napolitano:

http://www.judgenap.com/contact.shtml

I just emailed my congressman:

"Rep Scott,

I am currently organizing a grassroots effort to question the Constitutionality of the $850 billion bail-out you recently opposed. I would really appreciate your input on the matter. I have been spending the last week canvassing my district for your constituent's opion on the bail out. I have really garnered a lot of support on questioning what has transpired in the recent weeks.

I am really proud of your vote and stance on the matter and hope you can help out a fellow freedom fighter in way possible such as advice or your opinion on what you think I am attempting.

Thank you,
Joe"

I have just emailed Glenn Beck asking for anykind of mention of this on his radio and tv show (I referenced this forum and thread):

me@glennbeck.com

I have emailed Ron Paul asking for advice:

[URL="http://www.house.gov/paul/contact.shtml"]http://www.house.gov/paul/contact.shtml[
/URL]

Let me know who else I can email and call....lawyers, congressmen..whoever!!! I'm not sitting around anymore!:mad:

[fahayek]

I just email Walter Williams:

wwilliam@gmu.edu

Mr. Williams,

I am an avid reader of your column and agree wholeheartedly with your views. I feel the government is on a 1930's style power grab and am starting to feel I have nowhere to turn to for help. I have been canvassing my district and emailing everyone from Andrew Napolitano to Ron Paul to Frank Shostak. I have started a thread on ronpaulforums.com asking for help on questioning the constitutionality of the $850 billion dollar fleecing of the American people. I know you have friends in high places and am wondering what your opinion is on the constitutionality of what has been transpiring recently.

I know what I am asking is very vague but I don't know many other people who feel like I do.

Thanks,
Joe

[fahayek]

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2334

Where Was the Constitution in the Bailout Debate?
October 6, 2008
William J. Watkins Jr.

Last week, Congress passed and the President signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“the EESA”). Under the EESA, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to spend billions to purchase and manage “troubled assets” from financial institutions. These “troubled assets” developed from government-encouraged lending practices whereby mortgages were granted with practically zero down payments and minimal concern the about buyers’ monthly income relative to their monthly payment amounts. Americans bought McMansions they could not afford and the banks were left holding worthless commercial paper.

The debate over the EESA covered many subjects: executive compensation, the global economy, markets v. government planning, the importance of home ownership, etcetera. Strangely missing from the debate was any meaningful discussion of the constitutionality of the EESA. Whence does Congress derive the authority to give the Secretary of the Treasury the power to purchase and manage billions of dollars worth of private assets?

Questions of constitutionality are unfortunately given short shrift by our leaders. With any bill—especially one as momentous as the EESA—it should be the first question debated. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States. It was adopted not by state governments or legislatures, but by the people of the states assembled in convention and wielding sovereign authority. Hence, the Constitution is not merely a framework of government, but the final word of the people on what powers the federal government may and may not exercise.

Today, many Americans see issues of constitutionality as belonging to the courts. We must not forget, nor should our leaders, that all three branches of the national government (Congress, the President, and the judiciary) take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Constitutional interpretation and fidelity are as much the business of Congress as they are the business of the judges.

Congress’ powers are enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. A number of specific powers are listed (e.g., coining money, establishing a post office, raising armies), but nothing is mentioned about intervening in private markets and managing large portfolios of assets. According to James Madison, the powers of Congress were carefully enumerated so that the federal government “can only operate in certain cases.” Unfortunately, over the years Congress has become so used to exercising plenary authority that no one even discusses the basis of its power to act. Questions of constitutionality were not raised by congressional leaders, the mainstream media, or by the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Barack Obama. The people’s fundamental law received the silent treatment.

Enumerated powers aside, the national debate also ignored the EESA’s lack of standards for directing the broad grant of discretion to the Treasury Secretary. Even if one assumes that Congress may meddle in private markets at will, the method employed under the EESA is legally suspect. Under separation of powers principles, legislative power typically cannot be exercised by members of the executive branch or the judiciary. The Supreme Court, however, permits some delegation by Congress as long as Congress provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the executive branch officials. With the EESA, the Secretary of the Treasury is given czar-like power over a large segment of the private market. The purchase and management of bank assets is left to his best judgment. Congress’ delegation of power under the EESA raises serious separation-of-powers concerns and threatens to improperly mix legislative and executive authority.

Americans should be concerned that a constitutional discussion was completely absent from the national debate about the bailout package. The EESA is the largest government intervention in the private economy in the history of the United States—it makes FDR’s New Deal and President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills look like Mickey Mouse.

Before our leaders ever reached the pros and cons of the bailout, they should have carefully examined the Constitution and considered whether the people ever delegated such broad powers to the national government. Sadly, our fundamental law was never part of the discussion.

Undoubtedly, the bailout package will have long-term effects on the American economy. The greatest impact, however, is the loss of any real constraint on government power. If the Constitution is not consulted or debated when the government seeks to acquire and manage billions in private assets, then we may safely assume that there are no limits on Congress’ powers. Untrammeled government authority—not economic stabilization—will be the lasting legacy of this Wall Street bailout.
William J. Watkins, Jr. is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and author of the Independent Institute book, Reclaiming the American Revolution.