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 ...
Spoken like a shyster who believes the Consitution is a living, breathing document.
The Constitution was not intended as a general guideline for Government, it is/was a specific blueprint for Government. If it was not written into the Constitution, then the Fed Gov. did/does not have the power to do it. The original amendments were further enumerations on what the Fed Gov could not do.
Perhaps a little Lysander Spooner will help you understand;
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html
Sui
It's comments like this that feed liberals' caricatures of conservatives.
****
Hey...they gotta have something FREE to eat. Its their entitlement.
The President has emptied the Disaster Relief Fund, and we'll be giving more. He should address the country about this and soon.
Would you give a relief package to an Indonesian man wearing a T shirt with Osama Bin Laden's picture on it? (that happened). Just a question, I don't have the answer. Keep in mind most Indonesians are Muslims, many of whom are radicals who hate the US and support the terrorists. One of the deadliest terrorist attacks was in Bali, Indonesia. The Aussies lost many citizens there.
PIFFLE
Every action by the Feds does not have to be mandated by the USA. The formation fo the Federal Banking system shortly after the founding of the USA, for example, was not mandated by the USC and would fall within 10th Amendment concerns you mentioned, yet clearly it's (necessarily) not an unconstitutional enterprise (and a pretty smart thing to do, of course).
To be fair, those arguments that it would be ubnconstitutional for numerous reasons were made at the time and they failed then and they will fail now.
You are partially right in your answer - you really DON'T know where to begin! ;-)
CAUTION! The following may seem to be heartless, BUT:
I think the disturbed response to the President allotting so many ($350,000,000) hard earned tax dollars to other countries without the approval of US citizens is understandable. We pay taxes to keep the US afloat, NOT THE WORLD. How does the President have that power and
just who is playing God here?
Just a thought.
ROFLMAO. I mean, REALLY ROFLMAO!
That's an interesting theory. I sometimes wonder how many of them are just nutbar leftists making outrageous posts in order to make conservatives look bad.
I have NEVER personally known anyone who fits the ridiculous stereotypes of conservatives the way that some posters here do, and I live in the most conservative parish in Louisiana (Thank God since I don't have the temperment to be surrounded by leftists, or right-wing extremists, for that matter).
I completely agree - my point is that those who argue against all sorts of elective actions by the feds - that is, stuff not mandated nor expressly forbidden by the USC - on Constitutional grounds are all wet.
Oh brother, just how many votes did this supposedly christian man get? Peroutka had no problem letting the state take care of his step daughters. He had no problem keeping their social security checks even while they were in state foster care.
The constitution party is a great big joke. They also make conservative christians look bad.
I don't take issue with the humanitarian assistance at all, but I've heard Colin Powell (on FX) saying that some of the assistance will be going to rebuilding their tourist industry.
THAT is not money well spent. We should not be spending money to kick-start the Thai tourism industry--or anyone else's for that matter.
Hopefully, there will be an accounting on how and where this money is spent--to ensure that it helps the needy get clothing, food, medicines and the like.
I would, but he'd sure as hell know it's the United States feeding him NOT OBL and our Saudi 'friends'. Nothing drives the terrorists more insane than christian charity.
About the osama t-shirt guy, considering the state of the poor over there (and not knowing, but assuming the guy is not upper class), would he have a variety of shirts available to him from which he selected the osama shirt to wear? Or, is he more likely to just be grateful to have a shirt at all, even one with osama's pic on it?
But....but.....but.......we've been told repeatedly for the last two days by these very people that they are, in fact, the "real, true" conservatives, all knowing, of course, and we are WRONG to agree with President Bush that this country show respect for 141,000 deaths.
One guy even said that a woman who lost her seven children didn't need any money BECAUSE HER FAMILY WAS DEAD and she didn't have any expenses.
If you don't want to help these people because they are suffering, how about helping them so that their governments remain stable, and we avoid Islamic terrorists or the Chinese from taking over the area?
Peroutka. LOL
It is that attitude that has allowed socialism to get it's foothold here and, while I don't claim to be a good loser, your side has won...but I don't have to respect you for it.
If a power is not stated in the constitution as belinging within the scope of the federal govt, it is left to the states. Extra-constitutional and unconstitutional are words that share the same meaning.
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.