Does the Senate Bailout Plan Violate the Constitution?

The House bailout plan failed a couple of days ago, but now the Senate is weighing in on the thing. Not that they've ever cared much in the last few years/decades, but I'm thinking that the Senate has no authority under the Constitution to even propose a legislative plan for a bailout. Here's why...

Article I section 7 of the Constitution says:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
The House bailout plan has already failed, but now the Senate has its own plan. Is the Senate bailout plan a bill for raising revenue? I think it is. It's "debtified" revenue, but it nonetheless fits the definition. From, revenue is
the income of a government from taxation, excise duties, customs, or other sources, appropriated to the payment of the public expenses.
This is definitely being touted as a public expense, and the government will eventually have to tax us to get the income to pay for it.

So it's not Constitutional, on top of the fact that it is economic insanity.

If you haven't called your senator yet, give him or her a call, and when they ask you why not to vote for a bailout, tell them, in addition to it not making the least bit of economic sense, that it violates their oath to uphold the Constitution.

That will be something they didn't think they'd hear!


  1. Frank

    The constitution is no longer a 'living' document that liberals like to call it. It died a long time ago with Woodrow Wilson and its carcass burned by FDR. Long live the fascist states of America!

  2. PS. And with an Obama Presidency even our token sentimental devotion to it may end forever.

  3. Obama, McCain, it really doesn't matter. When you see how involved both of these turds are in our current fiscal crisis, it makes you cringe.

    Coincidentally, I completely agree with with your assessment of fascism in America. says that it is

    a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism

    We may not have a complete dictator yet, but that's largely the disease we've got, for sure.

  4. "We may not have a complete dictator yet, but that's largely the disease we've got, for sure". What? Are you serious? What does it mean "We do not have a complete dictator"? It is almost blindness to fail to see the FED as the complete dictator. There is no difference whether it is just one person making all the decisions or one private company.

    Additionally the viruses of the disease were evident to the founding fathers back then. We were completely infected, in other words, the viruses took over the whole body when we eliminated all political parties leaving only two, which actually are the same dirt in different pots. Most of the representatives and senators are promoted and appointed by those who control money, the FEDs. The FEDs are running the show for almost a century now. We were all blind, actually stupid to surrender our freedoms back then when all the political parties were being eradicated. Now it is too late. We can still work through our representatives, actually call them back and demand a referendum or to utilize some other constitutional avenue. But I am not sure that we can have enough numbers to do these things. Most of our citizens are dumbed down systematically to a point where most of us do not know our rights, do not have any idea how to work the constitution. But the worst is that most of us do not want to know. Why? Because together with knowledge comes adequate obligation to do something. And since we are lazy and prefer to sit in our own dirt rather than to get up and clean the house I am afraid we have to suffer longer maybe forever.

    But if change is extremely desirable, the only way to start it is to educate as many of our citizens as possible. Then they will know what to do without being led or directed. But again it will take a lot of time, since most of them do not want to know.

  5. Anonymous,

    You are right. When I made the statement I was thinking of George W. Bush in particular. When you put it like you did, I have to agree that the Fed IS the dictator.

    I've written about that here.

  6. Senators just find a bill that's not dead, exchange the entire body of the text for the text of the new bill, and, voila! Like magic, the bill no longer originated in the Senate and does not technically violate the Constitution. Heck, that kind of thing has been business as usual in Washington for decades.

    In general, WE THE PEOPLE of the United States haven't cared about the Constitution for a long time. And we're not just apathetic about it. We demand that our politicians violate it. We punish them if they don't. Is it any wonder things are the way they are?


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog