Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

337203

that is not a leap in logic that is off the globe

maybe the challenge was not to HERA as HERA like TARP is not by its nature unconstitutional

It would IMO be akin to arguing - TARP is unconstitutional and that was not done - that the FDIC is unconstitutional and that was not done despite their massive over reach per some - and then HERA

some like me feel strongly that HERA is a law and congress had every right to write it - pass it - and for Bush to sign in

some like me feel the actions of the GOV that are illegal and are unconstitutional arose when the GOV nationalized F and F through the back door via the SWEEP

so I totally find your argument - and yelling to Congress - to be way off base

the suit came when it did because the sweep is a violation of the LAW (IMO) and by its nature a taking

(question - Small community banks got clobbered by HERA (those banks had seriously huge amounts of F and F preferred stock in tier one capital - allowed by the GOV and FASBE). This "impact" was noted at the time of the conservatorship and decimation of the value of preferred stock and Paulson even spoke to it at a press conference (lied but spoke to it). Yet the community banks (or big friend in pushing for a return of F and F to equity ownership) --- did not use their group organizations to sue --- why? IMO because there was not grounds for such suit

(sorry to those who feel F and F were in good shape and its all a sham from day one ---- hell that may be true - but congress has a right to mistakes if such was the case --- but TREASURY and the EXECUTIVE have no right to violate the intent of a law and to TAKE our property ------- (i.e. I can see dilution and 10% - but not all our profit --- and it is THAT ALL THE PROFIT ACTION - the clear taking IMO (post fact !) -- that gives me reason to hope that 2 or 3 of the appeals court panel of judges will be on our side)