Mr. President, "Disaster Relief" Is Not Yours to Give

Peroutka 2004 ^ | 12/30/2004 | Peroutka

[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.

[alnick]

Few others in the Republican party are speaking up about it.

There's a good reason for that too.

[BriarBey]

Those little children can't help what the government does.
*****
Oh I'm real impressed...save theirs and slaughter our own or better yet hand them over to be raised by a homosexual couple. What a bunch of hypocritical, bureaucratic BS.

[thoughtomator]

Surely something involved must cross state lines somewhere.... /sarcasm

[Howlin]

I think the unappeasables on FR have finally found their candidate for 2008.

http://hillaryrepublicans.com/

[Goodgirlinred]

By doing so the president has made the United States "look good" if you want to put it that way. You may express your individual good will by donating personally to any number of private organizations as millions of people all over the world have done, even though their governments have spent their tax dollars to make their governments "look good" as you so cynically put it. I personally feel that it is human generosity and concern born out of the horror generated by the enormity of such a disaster and the tragedy of so much human loss and suffering.

[Petronski]

While we are at it, I personally think my school taxes are a waste educating the little sh*t that stole my car.

LOL I picture you with clenched fists in the air as you say that.

[HitmanLV]

No problem.

All I am saying is that the Constitutional Quarterbacks on the board tend to have a very flawed view of things at times. There is simply, flatly, nothing (necessarily) notably unconstitutional about elective action (not forbidden nor mandated by the USC) that the Feds take in a situation like this.

To the extent we can help those in need, I think it's a nice thing. If we can, we can. If we can't we can't. Clearly we can help some, so I support efforts to help. Why not? Americans are among the most generous and helping people around, I see no reason why we shouldn't live up to that tradition.

Honestly anyone making this a constitutional issue doesn't know what they are talking about. Period.

Keep the faith!

[cyborg]

Yep hehehe.

[SouthTexas]

Every action by the Feds does not have to be mandated

Yes it does. "WE" have allowed the politicians to run roughshod over "our" rights for WAY too long and "WE" are the only ones to blame. This has produced unconstitutional "departments" such as energy-that has never produced any, and education-that has never educated one child.

Col. Crockett's "Not Yours to Give" is quite applicable.

[Howlin]

Would you give a relief package to an Indonesian man wearing a T shirt with Osama Bin Laden's picture on it? (that happened).

One out of five million victims. ONE.

For all you know, somebody reading this very thread has on a Charles Manson teeshirt.

[cyborg]

Yeah *lol*

[Howlin]

He should address the country about this and soon.

Had your TV turned off all week, have you?

[BJungNan]

Just to let you know, I am paying attention to what you post. Quite close attention.

What does that mean?

[HitmanLV]

I am an attorney, though I am no shyster nor a lib, thank you very much.

I just know enough about the USC to know that this isn't a matter of unconstitutional conduct. To argue that it is only exposes dep and profound ignorance of the USC - read my remarks about the Federal Banking system in another post on this thread. That isn't a recent phenomenonm, but fairly early in our history. Indeed, some of the framers had a hand in it!

I figure they shuould know a lot more than you (or me, for that matter).

[alnick]

Hundreds of thousands of people perished, roughly one third children. Millions have been left homeless. And you're worried about one guy's t-shirt.

Here's a clue: Whenever you have a group of millions of people, there are going to be some bad guys among them.

[Carolinamom]

OMG Here we go again. Where the country clubber (sp?) go?

The most heartless thing I've ever read was that post about the woman who lost all SEVEN of her children not needing any help since she no longer had to support them. Dante needs to add another ring in Hell for such a poster.

[Miss Marple]

It means exactly what it says. I have decided to pay close attention to neutrino's posts.

[jeremiah]

Absolutely true, the federal govt has no right to exceed the authority GIVEN it by the people within the limited guidelines of the Constitution. Good luck getting the FEDGOV to live within the constraints of the "Law of the Land". The most ironic part of this whole story, is the govt borrowed this money to give away to people that will end up in the pockets of every crook with sticky fingers.

[worldclass]

"There's a good reason for that too."

What are they? The fact that we are all socialists now? I'm not ready to concede defeat to the left, even if some Repubs have.

[Howlin]

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

Other than about ten people on FR and Kofi Annon and Jan Egeland, and this whack job loser above, can you link ANY article that states that the good people of the United States are upset about the president donating this money?