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 isnt 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 ...
No it's not heartless but a legit question.
I am only saying that those crying a constitutional foul on matters like this don't know the USC, history, or legal tradition.
I never suggested we must exert assistance in times like this. I am just saying there is no constitutional bar to it.
Anyone who argues that there is a bar is just wrong.
I guess I should have asked why. But, I will go have a look at their past posts - thinking I may have an idea on this one.
If you like, I will explain in private.
Go to the head of the class.
I have NEVER personally known anyone who fits the ridiculous stereotypes of conservatives the way that some posters here do
Because there are only about 20 of them in the entire world -- but, of course, they are all registered here.
I think that for a forum that is supposed to let people express their thoughts and for people who are for individual freedom a lot of you spend a lot of time dissing other peoples thoughts. This guy has said what he feels. If you agree ok, if you don't agree, do it in a respectful manner. Calling people insane or other names and making insulting remarks really isn't my idea of being a good conservative or Christian. I agree with some of what this guy says. I certainly don't agree with what some of his disenters are saying, I.E.: if it isn't written in the Constitution then the feds can do what they want. The constitution says other wise. In this case however I think the people would go along with the aid, I know I do. I do however want to curtail taxes and spending in this country, as for individual freedom, we have no freedom without individual freedom. Collective freedom isn't freedom because the individual is thrown aside. The state isn't the supreme body, the people are and we need to get back to that.
|
You might notice the Taipei contribution.
If memory serves, Toyota also contributed $1 million, as did one of their distributorships.
Keep in mind that whoever controls the purse controls the agenda. We have seen this in schools, for example. Give the secular government authority to fund the schools and to tax us for it, then the next thing is that God might be kicked out. Oh, already happened.
I would rather see lower taxes with Christian charities providing the aid. Better all around.
Can you provide some Biblical principles to back up your main points? Thank you for posting, by the way.
No, that's not correct. Elective action not expressly forbidden by the USC, nor expressly mandated bu the USC either, is not by definition unconstitutional.
It never has been.
There is a 200 year history behind what I said. I's been the law for as long as the nation. The 10th Amendment is not necessarily a bar to elective action like this.
Period.
After three years as a Freeper, all I can say is thank God the "true conservatives" aren't running this country, because if they were, life would be bleak.
Actually, it is not all that hard to find a Constitutional authority to send disaster aid to tsunami stricken countries.
Are not India and Thailand members of SEATO? The U.S. then acts under cover of a Treaty in collaboration with other treaty countries. Heck, at home, the first disaster aid to the Creeks in 1792 was done on this basis by the Secretary of War.
Apparently most Freepers think that the President does have the power to give millions away even if the cause may be just. However, it is not stated in the Constitution anywhere that the President indeed does have this power. Therefore, he does not have the Constitutional right to do so, if you disagree show me where you think the Constitution does give him that power. The American people have always been among the most generous in the world, and therefore, it should be left up solely to the American people to provide for disaster relief, both abroad and at home. If we were to make it an explicit Constitutional amendment then the amount America donated for disaster relief could not be used as a weapon by either foreign entities (Bush and America are stingy etc.) or political parties (Republicans are mean people). Sad that so many Freepers really don't get the fact that they are CINO's (conservative in name only). Because basically they are good people whom I often agree with, but not on this issue. SORRY, that's my view and I am sticking to it.
Dear God, to lose seven children in one day. I don't know how she can bear it.
Let's put some tee shirts with Bush's face and the American flag on them in with those relief packages. :)
Let's put some tee shirts with Bush's face and the American flag on them in with those relief packages. :)
Perhaps. But when giving is done with an underlying motive or the expectation of something in return, then it is utterly pointless and selfish in nature.
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.