This past week, more conservative voters were fired up by an exchange between Rep. Michelle Bachman and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

I guess I found myself somewhat puzzled by the whole buzz, since it didn't really seem to include any knockout punch or anything remotely like it.

Bachman, well known in DC for some more controversial statements in the past year plus, went after Geithner during a hearing, demanding to know where the feds thought they had the power to intervene in the recent spate of financial instability in the US.  Here's a tidbit:

Rep. Bachmann:  What provision in the Constitution could you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of '08?

Secy Geithner:  Oh, well, the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities.

Rep. Bachmann:  Sir, in the Constitution. What, what in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?

Secy Geithner: Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is, has been using authority granted by this body - by this body, the Congress.

Rep. Bachmann: And by, in the Constitution, what could you point to?

Secy Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

-

This exchange is a good reminder that the Constitution means much different things to different people.

In other words, some people infer one thing from the Constitution.  Others read something entirely different.

A number of people have cited Bachman's argument as a reason to oppose Geithner's proposal for new federal financial regulations, which would give the feds the power to seize non-bank financial institutions that are in economic trouble.

The argument is that this power is way over the top, and that it would give the feds the right to seize private businesses.

Well, I hate to break this to you, but the feds already have that power in the financial world.

Through the Banking Act of 1933, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has the power to step in a seize a bank.

Then the feds can liquidate the bank's holdings in an orderly manner.

So, the argument isn't whether the feds can seize a private business - they can do that with a bank - rather the argument should be whether it would be okay to extend that to non-bank institutions, like AIG, whose failure might have caused economic dominoes to fall in other areas.

The political argument might need to be more tightly focused.

One thing people forget is that most of the actions taken by Uncle Sam the last six months have been done with powers conferred by Congress in the 1930's, during the Great Depression, not by recent legislative or executive actions.

Maybe it is a needed reminder of what the Constitution starts with in Article I.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

That's Article One, Section One of the Constitution.