Absolutely true. However, quite a number of misguided folks will not welcome your wise message.
Had the President put it to a vote of the people he likely would have gotten a 'yes' to give aid. In that way it would have been the people's good will that would receive it's just deserved recognition for their compassion.
It is wrong, very wrong for the President/government to usurp what is rightfully each individual person's deeply personal ethical concerns on doing right by their own conscience.
It sickens me that the government can so easily usurp such personal and integral-to-the-individual essence of character.
President Bush needs to address the people regarding this very important aspect.
-- Side note: consider how often politicians and bureaucrats spend your money to make themselves look good.
According to the Constitution the Congress (House of Representatives) must initiate and then the Senate must agree on any spending or allocation of funds. As I understand it the Congress gave the President authority to spend X dollars on disaster relief. The 350 million dollars just about wipes out the allocation. If more is spent then congress will have to initiate and then pass a bill authorizing the expenditure of additional funds.
So......... who is making the popcorn...?
2004? Hey spoiler-boy, the election's over. I think you lost or something. It was in all the papers.
How much does this aid work out to be per citizen? One dollar? Or two? Does Peroutka think we have control over every bit of our tax dollars? While we are at it, I personally think my school taxes are a waste educating the little sh*t that stole my car. How about that? If we're going to start discussing how our taxes are being used, we should do it in a logical fashion and one that is realistic. Sometimes folks like Peroutka can be a bit unrealistic.
If "conservatives" think President Bush is wrong here, and I think Congressman Crockett was right, they best be thinking of the hundred plus years this garbage has been going on, and place the blame squarely where it belongs.
At the feet of the American voter.
So Americans are more charitable than other nations.. big deal. If you want you can agitate for a billl making it illegal to send aid to foriegn nations for disaster relief. Good luck lobbying for this bill. Somehow I don't think the majority will support you. Democracy in action.
Fair enough, and this will become even more relevant as the scope of aid...exactly what, when, and where, and for how long...becomes evident. Some of these devastated countries are not our friends, too. A great deal to ponder.
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.
Peroutka. LOL
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.
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.
Paging Ragnar Danneskjold, please pick up the white courtesy phone...
This didn't start just yesterday. Over the last 40 years, the federal government has given us higher taxes, social welfare spending to the tune of $7-trillion and an ever expanding bureaucracy. Over the last 25 years, conservatives have led the charge to reduce the burdens of government on the American taxpayer. The job is far from over.
President Washington sided with Hamilton versus Jeffeerson on the interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause in the 18th Century when he signed the Act creating the First Bank of the United States. This interpretation has been consistently upheld for over two hundred years. Thus, the answer to the question posed in this article is clear: Yes, it is lawful. Nobody with even the slightest connection to reality would even argue the point. To argue the point in an attempt to shut off disaster relief to people who would otherwise die of disease is just cruel. To argue that the same principle would apply to deny disaster relief domestically is, frankly, insane.
Any politician or judge who tried to block disaster relief for 9-11 would be run out of office.
This article is a disgrace.