has brushed up on their constitutional principles and examined the bailout plan using a legal framework. Henry Paulson has been accused of being hasty and excessively interventionist, is he also guilty of violating the US constitution?

Rod Smolla from Slate queries the plans of the Treasury Secretary:

“Does the Constitution have any role in the intense debate and blowback surrounding Secretary Henry Paulson’s $700 billion bailout proposal? There is nothing in our founding document that prohibits taxing Peter (us) to pay Paul (Wall Street). There are constitutional principles, however, that speak to values such as oversight and transparency. Our system of checks and balances abhors a blank check.”

Read the full story here.