Replies

Mr Crockett's argument was well founded, in that it provided for unconstitutional "individual welfare" benefiting ONLY the one specific named widow, rather than adhering to Article 1; Section 8; Clause 1's ..."provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

Congress has lawfully and constitutionally appropriated the monies into an account, which the President has used to allocate these funds. Arguably they promote the general welfare of the United States, in that it has an effect on the standing of the US in the world community; and it advances the United State's diplomatic interests.

It (perhaps) even 'provides for the common defense" by reducing the dependence of the worst hit areas and populations to be exploited by our enemies.

On a practical level, it would be damned difficult to get the Supremes to buy an 'unconstitutional' argument on foreign aid, and constitutionally, their job is to interpret what that document says.

Without specific knowledge, I'll simply posit that there MIGHT be some treaty obligations involved in this, as well; if so, the Constitution also mandates those be fulfilled as "law of the land".

On the personal level, I applaud President Bush both for ALLOCATING (not "giving") the already appropriated aid funds; and for measured response. Please note, he also said if more is needed, he will ASK CONGRESS to appropriate more.

BTW, we also gave out of our own pockets; we did not simply let the government be our total surrogate in this.

While I am aware nothing is guaranteed in this life, there are too many "maybes" in your opinion. And for the record, I never said this was not a noble cause that needed our assistance.

Our "assistance" to many countries these days seem only to fuel more anti-American rhetoric, so any true benefits (other than humanitarian) would be a stretch at best. It is also my understanding (and I do not have inside info either) that the budget for disaster relief was 35 mil, not 350. It is "all" still our money, supposedly going into it's dedicated areas, not to be milked from various other programs.

Personally, I think the government got caught up in an "appearance" issue and there will be many losers, first and foremost, the disaster victims. I believe the military will do far more good with the hospital ships, helicopters, and water purification systems. (I know, that is a whole 'nother issue.) This is not something that can be fixed by just throwing money at it.