This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, April 10th, 2013.

I'm Caleb Brown. The financial reform known as Dodd-Frank is unconstitutional.

And if that's not enough for you it gives vast powers to

unaccountable bureaucrats to control financial transactions that from Republican U.S. Representative

Scott Garrett he spoke at a Cato Capital Hill briefing held this week.

Let me just begin by saying though, despite all the accolades, that I think the title is a little

bit off. Dodd-Frank is not a piece of legislation or law that is of questionable.

Constitutionality, I would say that it is without question

unconstitutional.

And for that reason, I say, I oppose Dodd-Frank when it came through the House for a vote.

Not simply because it was a bad bill that was done in a less than efficient manner that we could have done it more efficiently and such,

but basically because it was unconstitutional.

And those are really two very different things to say that I'm voting against something because

I think it says it's not done I'm voting against something because I think it's not done well

versus voting against something because it is unconstitutional.

It is in one thing to oppose a bill to say, well, I think I am smarter than the other side or have more wisdom than they do,

but is entirely another thing to oppose a law because, well, because it basically violates the very principles upon which this country was founded and upon the founding

father's documents, i.e. the Constitution.

As this audience knows, I believe that our Constitution establishes a government basically of restraint.

It enumerates a series of few and defined powers.

It defines those powers and responsibilities among three branches of government.

And in doing so, it basically establishes a system of checks and balances,

...