A rhetorical question

[Earl Maltz]

I must admit that my sentiments about the rate cut are to some extent 
like those of James Wilson.  However, Countrywide Mortgate was 
apparently in trouble, and if that company had gone into bankruptcy, 
it would have had serious consequences for the real economy.  so I'm 
of two minds.

I know, this has nothing to do with constitutional law, but its kind 
of interesting anyway.

At 10:15 AM 8/17/2007, Jonathan H. Adler wrote:
>Rhetorical Answer:
>Perhaps because they reject your premise that the Fed's behavior ultimately
>benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.
>
>As for the Constitutional point, it is not clear to me why the Federal
>Reserve would be particularly offensive to textualists.  Even were the power
>to adopt "necessary and proper" means to execute the federal government's
>powers construed fairly narrowly, I doubt the Fed would be among the first
>things placed on the chopping block.
>
>JHA
>
>------
>Jonathan H. Adler
>Professor of Law
>Director, Center for Business Law & Regulation
>Case Western Reserve University School of Law
>11075 East Boulevard
>Cleveland, OH 44106
>ph) 216-368-2535
>fax) 216-368-2086
>cell) 202-255-3012
>jha5 at case.edu
>http://www.jhadler.net
>SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=183995
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of James G. Wilson
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:55 AM
>To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: A rhetorical question
>
>      Why is there so much silence from so many conservatives- be they
>free market advocates, anti-Washington Federalists, critics of transfer
>payments, originalists, unitary executive advocates, textualists, and so
>forth-- when the semi-autonomous Federal Reserve decides to subsidize
>the reckless behavior on Wall Street (it may well accept as collateral
>sub-prime mortgage packages) while leaving beleagured homeowners to fend
>for themselves?   At least one partial answer is that the Fed may be
>doing the right thing to save bucaneer capitalism from itself.   Or, as
>John Kenneth Galbraith once famously put it, socialism for the rich,
>free enterprise for the poor.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed 
>as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that 
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.