Read it earlier tonight.

Maybe I am used to more conclusive conclusions in Economics papers, or I’ve seen to many episodes of Law & Order, but I was expecting this piece to either say that none, some or all of the actions taken by the Government in her dealings with Fannie and Freddie would be legal/illegal/being disputed in Court and we as the Boston Law Review believe that they are X, Y or Z as law A, B and C clearly applies.

Should the Boston Law Review not take a case and review the Legal Issues with it and see if they comply with the Law(s) involved? A simple legal opinion on the Constitutionality of the Third Amendment and the warrants would have been nice.

Last line of the Conclusion:

But just as corporate law issues pervaded and drove the government’s financial crisis conduct, we think that corporate law also has something to say in the resolution of regulation by deal and the problem of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Sounds vague and indecisive to me. Am I missing something since I am (happily) not a lawyer?

• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  inthetube.