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 ...
Be on the lookout for him. :-)
He's wearing a Polo shirt from a "very exclusive country club" that we would all recognize if he told us.
Yeah. Right.......LOL.
Humane? Is the word "humane" in the Constitution? :-)
If you agree that a woman who has lost 7 children in the tsunami needs no help because she has no one to support, then, by gosh, I will keep an eye on you, too.
"Let me just put it to you this way: Jan Egeland and his group had a press conference today about the disaster and what they are doing.
Two reporters showed up and all 3 networks cut away after the look on his face said it all."
Would you go into more detail please.
Why don't you all quite posting that.
I don't understand why they keep posting that either. It's not like Davey Crockett was the most honorable man.
You think that it would be perfectly consitutional to give $100 trillion for disaster relief?
Yes I have --- he's been doing a good job that way. I believe more in private charity than in government charity all the same.
Very well said. As I personally have a strict interpretation of the USC mindset, but I know that Constitutional analysis must necessarily include the text, supporting documents by the framers, 200 years worth of court decisions, a knowledge of history, an appreciation of practicality, as well as a wise sense of what is right and what is wrong.
Anybody who takes this disaster relief issue as a potent example of unconstitutional conduct is 'whacked,' as I like to say.
Thanks for the wise words!
Also, we need to decide who is running our Country. The people of the United States of America or world opinion.
I'm giving my extra money to www.anysoldier.com
Well since the Legislature has already appropriated money in this year's budget for disaster and relief aid, which is Constitutional. What's the problem?
There were only two reporters that showed up; they couldn't even cut away to show who was asking the questions.
Jan was a complete flat line, left to say, "Yes, the response from the United States WAS overwhelming. All the world, of course, but the U.S. especially."
And OUR helicopters being the only way to get things there.
And they need to do some more SURVEYING to see what's really needed over there.
I missed the rest because they ran a Sominex ad to wake up all up. :-)
I sure wouldn't want to live in a country that can't, or more importantly, wouldn't help devastated people around the world like this. The world is not my domain. The world is one of those things the government SHOULD deal with. Unfortunately, they don't do a very good job sometimes because there's all these stupid, local piddly-as$ed issues our wonderful representatives drag on to D.C. (in search of money, of course).
Americans, as individuals, are charitable. We can only expect our government to be the same. Otherwise, it wouldn't be America.
What I don't agree with is the federal gubmint taking MY money and planting it in another state for things that should be voted on and funded by locals.
Some of them still think we're living in the first half of the nineteenth century, apparently.
We went to Iraq for position in the Middle-East. World economic power!
Well, keep reading; someone will be right along to try to convince you otherwise.
It's perfectly constitutional to come to a decision to give disaster relief, yes.
As to the amount, that tends to be up to the decisionmakers. They can pledge a $100 trillion, send a check, and watch it bounce, I suppose.
They can pledge an excessive amount and be subject to a charge of abuse of power, I suppose, also.
That's not to say it was unconstitutional, really.
Since nobody is going to do what you suggested, I think you should just come to terms with the fact that this area, when approached with wisdom and practicality, is simply not a matter of constitutional foul.
No matter how many Freepers continue to hope it is.
You have outted yourself as a trool and/or disruptor.
Yeah right. After 6 1/2 years on this forum you've finally outted me as a troll. I don't know what a "trool" is but assume you meant troll
You're a hoot!
Conservative Republicans do NOT need a leader to tell us what we need to do nor where we need to do it.
The President speaks to ever person, not just conservatives. I'm not surprised that you didn't pause to let that thought enter your mind. Also, I said the President could ask the people. I didn't say the President would tell the people. Again, I'm not surprised by your dismal reading comprehension or mental acuity.
Conservative Republicans do NOT need a leader to tell us what we need to do nor where we need to do it.
You don't know you're being manipulated and like most people you're unaware you're being used.
I don't see that it was posted before.
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.