Is TARP constitutional?

The Trouble Asset Relief Program was passed by Congress and signed into law to thaw the credit crisis. At least that was its initial plan. But in reality the law gave much broader authority to the Treasury Secretary in using TARP funds, some hundreds of billions of dollars. In drafting the legislation, members of Congress met with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke to learn more about the problem. It was evident that either Paulson and Bernanke weren't able to adequately explain the situation, or lawmakers had no intention of fully understanding the crisis. The bill was passed within a few days, amid some lawmakers' admission of not really knowing what's going on, but "something had to be done."

George Will writes in Newsweek:

John Locke's "Second Treatise of Civil Government" (1609), which deeply influenced America's Founders, says: "The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others." And: "The power of the legislative ... being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands."

But that is essentially what TARP has done. It has made Treasury Department bureaucrats into legislators; or perhaps it has made Secretary Hank Paulson the fourth branch of government...

Our lawmakers sort of gave up on learning in detail about the crisis, and just lazily pressed for a vote on TARP. They threw up their arms and decided that letting the Treasury do all the work would be easier. And look at the situation now: more bailouts, more companies and municipalities asking for monetary aid, and more uncertainty from Paulson and Bernanke.