That is why President Bush initially sought new authority from Congress when he wanted to bail out automakers. Automakers, like fishing rod makers, are not "financial institutions."

Congress famously considered, debated and defeated legislation that would have authorized President Bush to spend TARP money bailing out automakers.

In our constitutional system, that should have activated a principle so simple a second-grader can understand it and so important that our system of government depends on our leaders respecting it: Because Congress did not authorize the president to spend money bailing out automakers, the president is not authorized to spend money bailing out automakers.

Or as the Constitution puts it, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

As Bush pondered using TARP to bail out automakers after having been denied the authority to do so, some honest observers -- both liberal and conservative -- said such a move would be illegal and unconstitutional.

"Even if the administration were inclined to do so, it simply lacks the power under the statute passed by Congress to tap TARP funds to prop up auto manufacturers," Heritage Foundation analysts Andrew Grossman and James Gattuso concluded in a Dec. 12 WebMemo.

"Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in democracy," former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich said Dec. 17 on the "Marketplace" public-radio show. "And under our Constitution, Congress is in charge of appropriating taxpayer money. If Congress explicitly decides not to appropriate it for a certain purpose, where does the White House get the right to do so anyway?"

Citing Reich and Heritage, CNSNews.com's Fred Lucas asked White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs at Monday's briefing why President Obama was going to "use more TARP funds, considering that it is legally questionable."

Gibbs essentially said it is legal because the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- says it is legal.

"I think that determination has been made, both in the previous administration and in the current administration, that this is assistance that is -- is legal," said Gibbs. "Our goal is to ensure that taxpayers in any instance where money is used feel confident that it's being done in a transparent and accountable way, and one that protects their interests."

What about our interest in having presidents who obey the Constitution?