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!
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.
The proper argument for an immediate tsunami relief effort by the U.S. government is this. To avoid millions more dying is beyond the ability of private individuals or charities to accomplish. The only realistic hope for survival of these people literally starving and thirsting to death in this disaster is a coordinated military operation.
The United States has the capability to at least make a dent in the problem through our military. To not even bother is to commit a monstrous inhuman and unforgiveable act.
We are our brothers' keepers and our military is the only realistic means to do so in this desperate and pressing moment. Every hour and every day counts.
We ultimately answer to a power above and beyond the U.S. Constitution.