[HitmanLV]

There is nothing necessarily 'unconstitutional' about elective use of Federal money unless the action is expressly forbidden by the USC.

Such an action is more accurately 'extra-constitutional.' Not expressly forbidden but not officially mandated, either. That doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional.

Making stuff like this a constitutional issue only makes our side look as bad as the other side, which loves making all sorts of issues into Constitutional issues when they can't win at the ballot box. Bad thing.

The Feds can choose to give disaster relief or not, and either course of action is perfectly constitutional. Arguing anything else is silly.

[gorush]

"There is nothing necessarily 'unconstitutional' about elective use of Federal money unless the action is expressly forbidden by the USC."

I don't know where to begin...the 10the Amendment is as good as any..."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The Constitution enumerates the powers given to the Federal government and disaster relief is not among them. The states can give all they want, as can the people...but NOT the feds. (I know, the constitution is meaningless today)

[gaspar]

The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance which serves both the Agency for International Development and the Department of State, has been involved in disaster aid for more than twenty-five years, including most recently in Darfur and South Asia. It has many friends in Congress who consider its professional response to world-wide catastrophes both necessary, humane, and (dare I say it?) Christian.

[Goodgirlinred]

Thank you for your response. I thought for a minute there that everyone was going crazy or that I was having delusions. We have always helped those in need. No matter who they are. I didn't like it when we were called stingy. I did say that we should tell those who said that to help these victims because all our money was tied up helping the victims in Iraq. However, the devastation because of this disaster is so great that everyone needs to help. Those little children can't help what the government does.

[suijuris]

Such an action is more accurately 'extra-constitutional.' Not expressly forbidden but not officially mandated, either. That doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional.

Spoken like a shyster who believes the Consitution is a living, breathing document.

The Constitution was not intended as a general guideline for Government, it is/was a specific blueprint for Government. If it was not written into the Constitution, then the Fed Gov. did/does not have the power to do it. The original amendments were further enumerations on what the Fed Gov could not do.

Perhaps a little Lysander Spooner will help you understand;

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

Sui

[suijuris]

Such an action is more accurately 'extra-constitutional.' Not expressly forbidden but not officially mandated, either. That doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional.

Spoken like a shyster who believes the Consitution is a living, breathing document.

The Constitution was not intended as a general guideline for Government, it is/was a specific blueprint for Government. If it was not written into the Constitution, then the Fed Gov. did/does not have the power to do it. The original amendments were further enumerations on what the Fed Gov could not do.

Perhaps a little Lysander Spooner will help you understand;

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

Sui

[Paperdoll]

CAUTION! The following may seem to be heartless, BUT:

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. We pay taxes to keep the US afloat, NOT THE WORLD. How does the President have that power and
just who is playing God here?

Just a thought.

[jeremiah]

If a power is not stated in the constitution as belinging within the scope of the federal govt, it is left to the states. Extra-constitutional and unconstitutional are words that share the same meaning.

[beckysueb]

The left and most of the rest of the world will hate us whether we give or not. I am sick of reaching out a hand to the left and most countries in the rest of the world and bringing back a stub. They bite the hand that feeds them. A little appreciation would be nice. I don't mean all people in those countries or all the countries in the world. Some of them are Americas friend.

[bvw]

So you are one who makes the USSCT Kings and Emperors? Their word is LAW, supreme and sole -- so you would say. Why bother with a legislature then? Makes the Presidency and Executive just a National Baliff and Sheriff's Department, such thinking does. Ridiculous!

The Supreme Court is not the sole dictator of what is Constitutional nor did the Founder's who wrote and signed that Constitution of ours intend it to be.

[Publius6961]

Such an action is more accurately 'extra-constitutional.' Not expressly forbidden but not officially mandated, either. That doesn't mean that it's unconstitutional.

Depends on your definition of "is"
Evidently, our Founding Fathers included the following sentences in the Constitution simply because they were verbose, had a few words left over and had to stuff them somewhere:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

Obviously unnecessary, according to many, but then, there wasn't really any serious intent to address clear and potential abuse. Or was there?

[Publius6961]

The Feds can choose to give disaster relief or not, and either course of action is perfectly constitutional. Arguing anything else is silly.

I can't think of anything sillier than that assertion, an opinion, really, masquerading as fact.

[William Tell]

HitmanNY said: "The Feds can choose to give disaster relief or not, and either course of action is perfectly constitutional. Arguing anything else is silly."

You think that it would be perfectly consitutional to give $100 trillion for disaster relief?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your point is perfectly logical, and I'd like to add this:

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 -- No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

There's the mechanism provided by the Constitution giving the Feds the power to appropriate public monies for whatever reasons Congress may see fit.

Everything beyond this is meaningless gibberish debating whether you like foreign aid or not.

[William Terrell]

According to the framers, any power not specifically enumerated in the federal constitution is expressly forbidden. If it were not, then it follows that all power is vested in the federal government.

Nevertheless, most people believe as you do, which is why the nation is in such a regulatory mess.

[ladyinred]

Thank you for your reasoned post. It was needed.