More...

To expound on what I said previously...

Take New Deal... regardless of what we might think was "right or wrong" about what the FDR administrations did in regards to expanding the scope of government (and I know we disagree here... a lot), no one can argue that the people of the nation both demanded and supported efforts by those administrations to fix what was not working. There were risks and falls inherently woven into our economy that made for wildly large swings in economic factors... BIG bears and bulls in the markets that impacted every facet of our nation with each swing of the pendulum.

Some of what was accomplished between 1933 and 1939 managed to curb the extremes to where the economy could still trend UP, without the requisite DOWN-turn that was such a common trend in the repeating depressions we experienced from 1801 to 1932. The proof here in is the fact that we haven't had an honest-to-God depression since 1933. Whatever that "something" was (and I still can't say I know exactly what it was) was NOT within the enumerated powers of the Federal Government... and thus must be an assumed authority that (by the letter of a constitutional republic) must either be amended to the constitution or provided for by the various individual States in general convention.

I'm not willing to go back to the days where every one to six years of positive economic growth was followed by one to six years of depression... who is? I've been living in a recession since 2008, and I'm not happy about it at all. What I am is curious as to whether or not this is an example (a functioning example) of the Fed taking responsibility for a problem and making it work because the people demanded it get done. I can admit that the Fed went too far in some areas and in many regards... but something worked, and has continued to work since 1933 without the need of a Constitutional amendment.

Does that negate the process by which the problem was fixed?