SCOTUS to hear arguments on whether federal govt can shield national banks from state laws? What do you think?

"Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Treasury regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, has allied with the banks it supervises to set aside state laws ranging from disclosure requirements on loans to limits on surcharges at automated teller machines. The comptroller's office argues that the National Bank Act, first adopted in 1863, envisions a system where national banks operate efficiently across state lines without regard to a patchwork of local regulations and authorities."

Fricking Wow! How many violations of the 10th are there in just this one paragraph? "allied with the banks" "Set Aside Laws"! What the hell does that even mean? "envisions a system" WTF! How bout we stick with what Jefferson and Adams 'envisioned' in our Declaration and Constitution?

edit - And they consider States Rights a "patchwork of local regulation"! Hell that's just One Paragraph!

On a side issue in the article..something else caught my eye. Spitzer (lol) was bitching about hispanics and blacks and higher interest rates. Well lets just cut the crap here. I'd welcome that investigation if done 'fairly'. Call me names if you want but just maybe the higher rates were connected to 'credit history and risk'? If the investigation shows otherwise then I'm fine with that too. Just cut the crap. Equal under the law should be the standard period!

No.

It isn't. In fact just the opposite is in the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Bearing in mind that this is from the same administration that signed an ex post facto "law" about bonuses.

If SCOTUS finds for the Feds we might as well tear up the Constitution because that's game over right there.

The Founding Fathers aren't rolling over in their graves. They're doing back flips.

It isn't in the Constitution. It's in the "powers that be", meaning, of course, that mighty Ventriloquist and his two Dummies, "D" and "R":

"Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Treasury regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, has allied with the banks it supervises to set aside state laws ranging from disclosure requirements on loans to limits on surcharges at automated teller machines."

I wish everyone with any power to make rules for those anti-American gangs would submit to voluntary lobotomies.

...

This shielding from state laws is unconstitutional. The government does not have this power. Our current government is not only disregarding our Constitution, but it is also committing treasonous acts.

The liberals want to prosecute Bush for keeping us safe. But the real prosecution should go to those who are disinterested if we're attacked.

Another thing...Scooter Libby got put into jail for giving CIA information about Valerie Plame to the public.
The next ones on the list who should be prosecuted is Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi....
Barack for releasing sensitive CIA information to our enemies, and Nancy Pelosi for lying about her role in & her knowledge of the CIA information she was given.

I think Clinton and the court will ignore the Constitution and do whatever what she wants, as most of the country cheers her on.

No, the federal government should not have that power.

It is nowhere in the Constitution.

This is a power grab by the Federal government.

since the money is unconstitutional ,i find it hard that the banking system could fall under federal guidelines only. the 10th amendment puts this as a state right,i don't think interstate commerce would apply

Yes, that is most definitely an unconstitutional power grab.