Upcoming Foreclosures

Which part of The Constitution gives Congress to power to freeze foreclosures and roll back interest rates?

I heard Hillary on the radio advocating a 90 freeze in home foreclosures (on sub-prime loans) and a 5 year freeze on interest rates (on sub-prime loans). Just where would congress get the authority to void millions of legal, private contracts, freely entered into by millions of people, under the existing laws of the 50 states and territories? For all of you who are worried about your rights, doesn't this make what President Bush has done pale in comparison?

Public Comments

1. that's why i'm not voting for her.....she's not going to make things any better
2. Yo, STOOPID...The Goverment ( REPUBLICANS are still part of it, I believe ) Are working with the real estate lenders to help AMERICANS, and thus themselves. No one said anything about POWER except a kool-aid drinking Con....Go Away.
3. Welcome to the mystical, magical, Interstate Commerce clause.
4. wondered the same thing myself....i have a mortgage and when you go to closing there are more than enough forms to make you aware of the fact that your interest rate will adjust to an unknown amount in a certain time period..........it would be different if this was an FDIC issue where banks were keeping people's money and folding........but everyone here should have been aware of what could happen......
5. They all have stepped into the New World Order ideology...I.E Taking away every ones rights.
6. every politician is on board. they want the votes next year. None of them have any real business sense. 90 days is not going to fix anything.
7. This is an excellent example...(And many of the dems policy initiatives are similarly repugnant to those who support the Constitution). For Dems, the Constitution is an abstract, arbitrary, obsolete construct. They frequently deal with it only as an obstacle that is to be circumvented (because overtly violating it has no support among the public).
8. Freeze foreclosure you say Lets see they only way they can foreclose is if you are not making payments Now what are they going to do tell the note holder to go pound sand and the home owner enjoy your free home Sounds real smart
9. Hillary also said she wants to seize corporate profits, and I doubt that's in the Constitution. It's dangerous, even if we are talking about the big bad oil companies.
10. That's what socialism is all about. Its the first step to dictatorship. Look at Chavez, and all the Dem's/ socialist that have supported him, in this country. He took over all the banks, all industry, oil companies. Sound familiar?
11. She seems to be promising something she can't deliver in order to get a few cheap votes.
12. the constitution is more about banning things. So if its not banned its legal for congress to make a law about it. however, i dont like it when government interferes with the free market. Their attempts to solve a crisis (which I believe their policies helped create) actually usually winds up making things worst. The best thing congress can do to stop foreclosure is to have policies that help american workers work and have jobs and to make money...instead of trying to ship out their jobs overseas or bring in cheaper and cheaper laborers to drive down wages. But congress will not talk about those things,they will blame it all on mortgage lenders. But statistics show that the prime reason for foreclosures is loss of jobs and loss of income or death major illness (without insurance) or a divorce.
13. What about the Authority to "take those profits", socialize Health care, or redistribute wealth. All are Banned by the 10th Amendment.
14. Oh yeah, it's so worrisome that the power of the state might be used to protect people, instead of , under bush, used to commit mass murder, torture, illegal spying, and grand theft. Look, millions of people could lose their homes. This will destroy the banks. That's the govt's concerns. Hillary is no champion of the little people. Those freely entered contracts - i found on page 7 of a refi i obviously didn't go for - the fact that my mortgage would jump to 5K a month in one year. Well, i have a college education and it was very hard reading to page 7 of that contract. i'm sure many people don't/can't and I KNOW the lender doesn't point out the scary facts. In addition, I had over 2 million dollars in mortgages just a couple years ago, and then they changed the rules dramatically. All of a sudden, those refis dried up and I had to dump three rental properties ASAP. Not everyone can dump them. As it is, our credit score has gone from 760 to 540 because of the mortgage disaster. I'm a stay home mom and had to go to work. But, on a grand scale, the banks would be destroyed if congress does nothing and communities will be destroyed as housing values collapse. What's your plan?
15. are you testing us? are you disingenuous? are you misinformed? This proposal which hillary supports is from the Bush Administration - secretary of Treasury!
16. No where in the Constitution is any authority of that nature granted to Congress or any of the other branches. Some of these loans were obviously made in error -- on the part of banks to make bad loans and sell them before dealing with the consequences, and on the part of homeowners who overstated income to get bigger homes. This doesn't make them illegal necessarily, but shows how corrupt and greed can affect banks and home buyers. But other loans are just fine, with low rates and no ARM increases, but homeowners simply lost a job, experienced a medical crisis, or had another hardship. These loans should be foreclosed, whether subprime or not, if the owners can not afford the properties or otherwise sell/refinance, etc. The only branch that might eventually have anything to do with this is the judicial branch, and only if homeowners sue the banks under some existing law and the case is litigated in federal court, appeals court, or the Supreme Court and a decision is made. Otherwise, Congress can't simply pass laws now that overturn contracts that were entirely valid and legal at the time they were entered into. I'd be even more worried if the President tried to do this on his or her own, though. That would be meddling in the market and in the voluntary contracts of people to a much higher degree than has been done recently. It's not on the level of gold confiscation, but let the people work out these problems through the institutions of government that are readily available right now. But anyway, I wouldn't worry about what Hillary (or any politician (besides Ron Paul)) is saying. It'll be a different "solution" next time she's asked about the issue. I'm not saying Ron Paul's solution would be right or wrong, either, but at least he wouldn't change the message depending on what interest group or radio show he's speaking to.