The Takeover of Chrysler & GM (Or, Isn't it Fun to Ignore the Constitution?)

As expected the president and the treasury secretary have dipped into the $700 billion "bailout" money and issues "loans" of nearly $18 billion to Chrysler and General Motors, circumventing the will of Congress and, by extension, the American people.

Merry Socialist Christmas, comrades.

A couple of points.

First, this is not a bailout. It's really a takeover. By issuing short term loans, the federal government is in a position to pull the plug on Chrysler and/or GM by late March if they so choose. That's raw, naked power that is most certainly NOT authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Is anyone going to test the legality of all this in the Supreme Court? Does anyone even care at this point (except, of course, for those of us who actually think that our limited constitutional Republic was a good idea)?

Second, let me issue a conditional "God bless Ford Motor Company for refusing the "takeover" money. (It's conditional because if Ford suddenly reverses itself and goes for the money, then I'd prefer that God withhold that special blessing. I'm just saying ...) Nothing good is going to come from the federal government directly inserting itself into the automotive business, and I'd like to think someone at Henry Ford's old outfit understands that.

The loss of part of all of the U.S. auto industry would be a terrible thing, but it would would be short term because people are still going to need transportation and the industry would bounce back stronger.

But there are worse things than failure. Having the federal government micro-manage the auto business, and the ripple effect that it will have across our nation's economic and social life, would be disastrous. Government does nothing efficiently. Nothing. (Some would argue that the military breaks things efficiently, but even that is not true. War is by definition an exercise in excess, and excess is not efficient. Necessary, occasionally, but not efficient.)

What an unrestrained government, acting unconstitutionally, does do is infringe upon the rights of all free men and women, usurping individual rights in the name of the greater common good. All rights - given to individuals by the Almighty - can be summed up under the headings of rights to life, to liberty, to ownership of property and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution is a contract that says we, the People, as individuals, grant to the government a lease on protecting these rights. The government has no extra rights itself, only those granted in writing by the People. When government usurps those rights, or commits actions that deprive some individuals of rights so that others may prosper, all are harmed. The contract is breached. This has repercussions for all aspects of our society and culture, not just our economy.

Once this was understood by most Americans, certainly by those who sought elective office, and nearly all of whom were named judges. This is certainly not so today. There is derision toward the constitution. Insufficiently evolved, so goes the cry. New rules for new challenges of modern times. Divinely given rights? What nonsense, we are told.

And thus we have a nominal Christian president of the United States with one breath declaring that he is a "free market guy" and practically the next breath invoking the "powers" of the treasury to ignore the will of the people by obligating the full faith and credit of the people's government to "rescue" businesses operating in the so-called free market.

A government that thinks it's big enough to guarantee success to everyone is also big enough to think it can take success away from anyone. Buckle up, folks. The ride is going to get bumpy.

CONCORDANCE - Stephen Sprueill over at The Corner has a related post on this matter entitled, "Bush Punted." Also see Henry Payne at Planet Gore, "Bush Bails."