HR 1424: unconstitutional tyranny?

I am currently reading James Madison, a biography by Ralph Ketcham. I have used several quotations from paragraphs found in pages 308 through 323. Madison was speaking to the issue of far-reaching Federal powers and to the resultant corruption of the legislative branch ultimately controlled by the executive branch. Today, I believe Madison's perspective can well be applied to HR 1424, Emergency Economic Act of 2008, which will work its tentacles into every aspect of our "housing" industry and corrupt or eliminate the bedrock of our nation's freedoms, that of private property ownership.

The national bank, given special privileges by law, yet placed under a board of directors composed largely of private individuals, seemed to Madison a means to further enrich the commercial classes Hamilton favored so candidly and a device to further corrupt Congress and bend it to the will of the Secretary of the Treasury. (pgs.321-322)

And further,

For Madison, both national authority and broad construction of the Constitution were subordinate to a conviction that only under pure republican forms, free from oligarchical influence and corruption, was strong government compatible with freedom and the rights of man. (p. 322)

Relating to the "powers of Congress", "...generally accepted by federalists in 1787 and 1788, the "necessary and proper" clause merely permitted Congress to pass laws explicitly and necessarily related to its enumerated powers." (p.320) Madison then, I would submit, moved to the issue at hand in his day and also relevant to ours although for us it is not a national bank but rather the Federal intrusion into the very core of our national well-being, our private property ownership:

"The doctrine of implication (broad construction) is always a tender one. The danger of it has been felt in other Governments. The delicacy was felt in the adoption of our own; the danger may also be felt, if we do not keep close to our chartered authorities. Mark the reasoning on which the validity of the (national bank) bill depends. To borrow money is made the end, and the accumulation of capitals implied as the means. The accumulation of capitals is then the end, and a Bank implied as the means. The Bank is then the end, and a charter of incorporation, a monopoly...implied as the means. If implications, thus remote and thus multiplied, can be linked together, a chain may be formed that will reach every object of legislation, every object within the whole compass of political economy." (p.320)

Ketcham continues: "In short, Madison argued, the doctrine of implied powers struck 'at the very essence of the Government as composed of limited and enumerated powers.' The only safe role of interpretation was to take the word "necessary" seriously. If, as in the case of a national bank, there were other ways, clearly constitutional, to tax, to borrow money, and to regulate the currency, then a national bank was not necessary, and was therefore not constitutional." (p.320) My question is simple: Is HR 1424 constitutional? Or is it the largest Federal power grab since the founding of our nation? As I mentioned in an earlier post, here, the Federal government with its handmaiden, the Congress, passed the Housing and Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Jimmy Carter. Our federal government created the "credit crisis" we have today and that same federal government has now - with the blessings of some in the Senate and the House - been given the keys and put a lock box on the American Dream. I believe we had and still have "free market" means to correct the errors of past legislation but once again our Congress and Executive have chosen Socialism. The problem is that the people who voted for this heinous legislation have no conceivable idea of how the legislation will be implemented and how destructive it may be. And I am reminded of the saying, "Marry in haste, repent at your leisure." Some in our Congress and Senate "married" Paulson in haste but it is we, the American people, who will pay. HR 1424 brings new meaning to the term, "shotgun" wedding...