PAS
"PeterN" <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote in message

PeterN
On 3/27/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:

PAS
"PeterN" <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote in message >On 3/26/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:

"PeterN" <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote in message

PeterN
the Constitution is not to be read literally. e.g. Freedom of speech does not give anyone ot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion does not give the right to use illegal drugs, or commit bigamy, etc.

The bailout is legal under the Commerce clause. If you fell the government has actd illegally, you have a right to bring an action to stop the action, provided you are harmed by it.

PAS
IMO, it is a ridiculous stretch to interpret the Commerce clause as giving the power to the federal government to take taxpayer money and invest in businesses. The Commerce clause is for regulation, not investing. Yes, we were all harmed by the unconstitutional action - the taxpayers lost over 10 billion in the GM bailout.

PeterN
fortunately, the vast majority of our elected officials, and multiple decisions of the Supreme Court, with judges appointed by both parties, think otherwise.

PAS
I don't recall the bailouts being challenged in the Supreme Court.

PeterN
The concept has been.

You bring up an interesting point. What would have happened had the bailout not happened. the loss we took on GM was due to the inability to manage money. I have heard that GM is now sitting with over twenty Billion cash, and may soon restore its dividends. In sociological terms, the GM bailout is not much different than the Corps of Engineers rebuilding beaches so that the folks who own beach front housing can continue to live there. Beach access to folks like you and I is severely limited despite the fact that you and I paid for it. (Remember the Moriches Inlet?)

PAS
I certainly remember the Moriches Inlet.

Some would argue the point that we didn't lose 10 billion, we would have lost more in social program spending if GM went bust when GM workers became uinemployed, as well as suppliers losing money and workers, etc., etc. There is a point to it. But I think you know how I think about this, it's more in terms of black & white. I don't see where the government has any Constitutional authority to give any business taxpayer money. By doing so, the federal government became a stockholder, something else I don't see the Constitution giving them authority to do. Then we have the millions thrown at companies like Solyndra...

As much as something may benefit us, if the federal government has no Constitutional authority to do it, then they simply should not do it.