The banks versus the Constitution

• Published in: Harvard journal of law and public policy Vol. 33; no. 2; pp. 465 - 473
• Main Author: Paul, Ron
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc 22.03.2010; Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy
• Subjects: American international group, inc; Bailouts; BankAmerica corporation; Banking; Banking industry; Capitalism; Central banks; Citigroup Inc; Debt; Economic stabilization; Federal government; Federal national mortgage association; Finance; General motors corporation; Government lending; Interest rates; Intervention (government); Laws, regulations and rules; Obama, Barack; Politics; Presidents; Stock exchanges; United States Federal home loan mortgage corporation; United States Treasury department; War of 1812; World War I
• ISSN: 0193-4872; 2374-6572

Since October 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve have taken majority stakes in the country's largest commercial insurer (AIG), largest auto manufacturer (General Motors), and largest mortgage lenders (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were already government-sponsored). [...] it was that these interests were able to demand and obtain the legislation which ignited the American Revolution.4 Despite the lack of constitutional authorization for a national bank, the idea of central banking still appeals to politicians because central banks make financing wars and government growth much easier. [...] Alexander Hamilton proposed the creation of such a bank to the first Congress, even though the Framers of the Constitution and the ratifying conventions would never have agreed to create one.5 He got his wish, and the first Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791.