Posted on 01/02/2005 8:50:12 AM PST by worldclass
The real issue here is whether such so-called Federally-funded disaster “relief” is Constitutional. And the answer is very clear: No, it is not. There isn’t the slightest Constitutional authority for Federal tax dollars to be spent for disaster “relief.” Thus, any such expenditure of Federal tax dollars for disaster “relief” --- foreign or domestic --- is illegal, unlawful.
(Excerpt) Read more at peroutka2004.com ...
Same people...only African-Americans had only resently been deemed same.
You are a real piece of work, you and howlin and your crowd... Why is it that charity has to come from government? Beyond the Constitutional issues, which are plentiful, why should the American taxpayers be on the hook for all this aid? What is wrong with PRIVATE charity? At least it gets to the people who NEED help, whereas the government funds, not unlike "oil for food," will wind up in some tinpot dictator's swiss bank accounts. Is THAT what you're advocating? Americans are the most generous people on earth. Why not just let us do our thing PRIVATELY and leave the government OUT of it? I can see sending some military people who have the training and equipment to deal with the actual crisis part of things, but after that leave things to the private charities who are equipped to get aid where it's needed, not into bank accounts of the local High and Mighty."
And, on a similar note raised by one of your cronies, if you are NOT advocating conserving our Constitution, why would you call yourself a "Conservative"? What ARE you trying to conserve, besides your current temporary hold on power?
"I have decided to pay close attention to neutrino's posts."
To what end and for what purpose?
If you are, in fact, a lawyer, you have my sympathy on your dire lack of education and knowledge of our history. Perhaps a refund of your tuition would be in order.
The Founders created the Constitution, their and our contract with each other which allows FedGov to exist, to act as our AGENT in certain matters, NOT AS OUR RULER. You are aware, I would hope, that an agent cannot ever do anything his principal cannot legitimately do. (That they violated the principles they discovered right from the beginning does not negate the principles one iota.) Thus, if I as an individual do not have the legitimate authority to compel you to halp pay for my favorite charity, NO ONE ACTING IN MY NAME HAS THAT AUTHORITY, EITHER. The Constitution is a limit on the authority of government, which acts in our names and can only do what we, its principals, may properly do. NOTHING MORE. It is implicit thoughout the Constitution, but made quite EXPLICIT in the Tenth Amendment. It is the IGNORING of that principle that has gotten us to the point where we now have RULERS who think thye can do no wrong. And sycophants, like a number of posters here, who toady up to them for a share of the power, no matter how ephemeral or vicarious.
1. neutrino made disparaging and vile comments about this disaster, which seemed to me to be designed to make this web site look bad to the public. Other's may not care about Free Republic's reputation, but I do.
2. I do not consider this aid unconstitutional. Your opinion may differ, but it does NOT mean that you are the only one with the correct answer.
3. The Bible tells me that I am my brother's keeper. If I have to choose between the Bible and the Constitution (which I actually do not think I need to do) then I will choose the Bible.
4. Pivate charity is wonderful and sorely needed. However, certain things can only be done by our government. How many helicopters and aircraft carriers do the Red Cross and World Vision own? If a government refuses to do something necessary, what authority do NGO's have to change their minds?
5. Finally, who made YOU the authority on what is truly conservative and what is not? And why do you feel like you can attack people who agree with me, and yet whine when people criticize people of your side? Get a grip.
Finally, all the bullying, blustering, name-calling, and invective that you and your cohorts bring to bear will NOT cause me to change my mind. The only thing you are accomplishing is making fools of yourselves before lurkers. You might want to re-think your discussion style.
If the 13th amendment "made blacks the same" as whites, why didn't the 5th amendment apply to them? Why did there have to be a repitition of the EXACT words already written 80 years earlier?
Am I to conclude from this post that you support section 8 housing, food stamps, free public schools, "earned income" tax credits, etc...?
After all, you say "we" have compassion for everybody, and apparently compassion means throwing money at problems.
How is it wrong when Ted Kennedy insists we need to throw more money at medicare, but yet it is appropriate compassion when George Bush wants to throw money at Kofi and the Indonesian people?
You are using the same moral relativist tactics so often demonstrated by the left. There is no law explicitly granting the US Congress or President the power to allocate tax dollars to charity, so you simply stretch either "general welfare" or "treaty making authority" to fit your own personal wants or needs while criticizing those who stretch in the other direction.
Nope, just humanitarian relief for those suffering from the catastrophic destruction caused by the Tsunami.......
No problem from me. I use the two words interchangeably.
At what point does abridging my rights to my income become an alienation or surrendering of my rights to my income? If this president / congress or the next one says that we need to pay 50% tax on our income, will you still gladly go along? 60%? 70%? 80%? Do you also believe in just being a little pregnant?
All tax schemes that transfer wealth, abridge unalienable rights.
Your lack of respect for rights is frightening. At what point do you say NO! to the government?
Your comment and question are disrespectful to objectivity. I deserve neither the comment nor the question.
You don't object (apparently) to the income tax which takes a portion (or should I say abridges) your income, but you object to the FairTax
Don't put words in my mouth. Both tax schemes deny unalienable rights. I even think that the "FairTax" is better than the current tax system.
I have had only this one screen name. I'd ask you to back up your claim but since you lied there is no way you can.
I never said you had a different screen name. You lie.
Because one pledges something, it doesn't logically follow that the person has the authority to back up that pledge. The example you give above would be a case in point.
Please see U.S. Constitution for more specifics and to ease concerns about such.
To a degree are we slaves? I don't know if I'd put it that way.
I would say that to a degree we are not free. Who wouldn't say that?
BRAVO!
EXCELLENT!
WELL SAID!
Thank you.
Your slip is showing.
Why would you ever have to choose between the two? The Bible instructs us on how to live our lives. The Constitution tells the government not only the few things that they may do, but also the many things that they cannot do. There is no conflict between the two.
A conflict will arise however, when the government violates the Constitution and endeavors to play God with us.
So, if you would choose the Bible over government (and not the Constitution), then you have been on the wrong side of this. Giving personally while rejecting the government's claim to have the authority to command charity is not inconsistent with the Bible. That's the point that we (the majority) have been arguing, not that no help should be forthcoming.
Support your position with specifics in US legal history, as well as US american history.
The fact remains that there is nothing notably unconstitutional about this issue.
I need no refund for my legal education, thanks for asking though.
Opinions of the American people will decide where this goes. I do think I am in the majority, but, of course, I could be mistaken.
At any rate, I think you need to realize that people who hold my opinion are trying to do the right thing, both for our nation and for ourselves as Christians.
Going from your last point first, I suppose it would be crude of me to point out that one needs a mind in order to change it, so I won't. That WOULD be rude. However, having said that, NO ONE has said, that I can find, ONE WORD about Americans, AS INDIVIDUALS, ignoring the plight of those who survived that catastrophe, or any other such situation. The point is that you can be your brother's keeper as much as you like, WITH YOUR OWN MONEY. It is when you try to be a philanthropist with OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY that I object. That is a LIBERAL, SOCIALIST position, NOT a conservative one. Nor should it ever be one.
I already SAID that troops, trained to deal with these sorts of situations and having equipment to use, were a good idea for the VERY SHORT term. After the most immediate and pressing issue, finding survivors, is done, they go home. That is an IN-KIND sort of thing which is fine. It is the MONEY, which will primarily flow to the bank accounts of the elites that I have a problem with, OK? (Not unlike toe "food for oil" scandal that should get the UN shut down and its top minions behind bars.) The rest is what the PRIVATE charities, and I do NOT include the Red Cross there, are OUTSTANDING at doing, the Salvation Army, World Vision and so forth.
Finally, I made me the authority. If you don't like it, PROVE your case by the Constitution itself and the writings of the Founders and I will accede. But your "feelings" don't cut it. PROVE it. I swore an oath several times to protect and defend the Constitution from ALL its enemies and, since no one has ever told me that my oath is no longer in force, I did some serious studying to find out just what it was I was protecting. So PROVE me wrong, if you can. If not, then either you come over to the light or you are no kind of conservative, so there!
Frankly, you can rant all you wish. You can insult me, as you seem inclined to do. I don't particularly care.
I know what I think is right, and I think the President is doing the right thing. I don't have the time or the interest to justify it to you, an unappeasable.
Most Americans agree with what we are doing, and that is sufficient.
Good evening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.