Posted on 01/08/2005 2:58:14 PM PST by Mikey
The television brings us images of all kinds of evil. Rape. Murder. Theft. Corruption. Death. We see terrorism, battles in the Mideast, dishonest government and endless stories of sick events unfolding in the world around us. Recently, we've seen devastating images of events that seem a little more complicated: Nature destroying lives and livelihoods. We're seeing creation groaning and we know that something is wrong with all of this; it's not right. And in the midst of that, we give.
We're giving a lot. It seems to be our only response. So much so it that we're seeing what can only be described as logistical problems in seeing that money all the way to the ravaged nations. Aside from the donations of individual Americans, one of the top donors in this disaster is the United States government, pledging $350 million in financial aid.
And what else can we do? We've got to help. We've got to rescue those wrecked. We must give warmth to the cold. We should heal the sick and provide shelter to those without a home. However, for those who value morality as well as people, we come to this financial-aid business with mixed emotions. I recently heard someone say that whether or not the U.S. government giving financial aide was constitutional, it wouldn't matter – it's still right. Yet, I wonder if that's true.
First, it's easy to recognize that the Congress handing out millions of dollars to anyone as financial aid is unconstitutional – Article 1, Section 8 clearly defines the powers of Congress. Even while the previously stated needs of the hurting must be helped, we Americans come to an interesting place where our elected officials break the law, for a good cause and for corrupt causes. In this moment, I think it's important to recognize the state of America: A house divided against itself, legally at least. Does it even matter? I think many would decide without concern for the constitutional powers of Congress. Still, it would be true to conclude that the road of situational ethics is a perilous one.
For our nation's well-being, the constitutional nature of our government must be claimed once again, if truth matters. If our laws mean anything at the end of the day, we must set things straight. If ethics and morality that were once held in such high esteem still matter, then we must have this conversation.
The problem has two clear solutions: One, the federal government must cut spending and taxes; the people of America are generous enough to provide aid for those hurting at home and abroad. Or, the Constitution must again be amended to legitimize such spending. While some may claim that to be immoral, at least we would be adhering to our charter.
While these ideas may be perceived as callous while we're still in the midst of this tragedy, I firmly believe that the future of America is unsure if laws no longer matter. The slippery slopes of corruption and relativism only result in a disaster of itself.
The financial giving to relief organizations in the ravaged nations shows something about humanity. I think it reveals our desire to fix what is wrong and find resolution for the pain. However, the same zeal we demonstrate providing relief and aid to the hurting we must also have in standing up for truth and honesty in our nation. That, of course, begins in the heart, but I certainly hope it will someday manifest itself in adherence to our own laws.
Special Offer!
In Kyle Williams' book, "Seen and Heard," America's youngest national columnist takes on the establishment, offering clear evidence that a leftist agenda is at work in our nation. His lively, energetic analysis of current events is both informative and entertaining and will leave readers with a better understanding of the daily attacks against traditional family values. Order your copy now in ShopNetDaily.
Kyle Williams is 15 years old and lives in a rural community in America's heartland. In addition to his weekly weekend column on WorldNetDaily, Kyle also has a daily blog at OklahomaConservative.com.
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---
"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.
"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?
"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'
"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.
"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Yes
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up to the stand and said:
"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they hav something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
There seems to be no money for body armor, no money for head stones for those who gave all, yet there's plenty of money to give UN-Constitutionally) to a country that most likely harbors terrorists.
Yeah its so easy to be charitable with someone else's money.
Every year an incrasingly larger amount of tax money is going to non-citiizens within our borders.
Doubly unconstitutional, since only congress can alot money.
As well as deadbeat citizens on welfare.
You don't want Kofi Anan on our butts do you ?
Every year an increasingly larger amount of our tax money is going to non-citiizens within our borders worldwide.
I will accept the fact that giving by our National Central government need not be specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but all these discussions beg the question: is there a limit? If not, then the assumption is non-sensical. If there is, then who rightfuly and "Constitutionally" sets that limit?
Why even discuss it? Well, because some people without a whit of sense manage to get elected to Congress and other offices where they can (and do) do a lot of damage. Most tolerable, but some causing damage and pain for generations.
There are more needy people in the world than we can save, even if we start allowing our own to die in their stead.
Nobody is morally, ethically or legally entitled to decide that.
So we must accept the reality that there must be a limit.
What is the alternative? Private giving based on individual free choice. Private decisions are the only defensible ones, regardless of the smallness or the largeness of the contribution. Individual decisions need to be justified only to oneself. I don't decide for you and you don't decide for me. Who can argue against the simplest and most rational solution?
I doubt that we would ever have this discussion because some individual was giving "too much", again, according to those deficient minds I mentioned earlier.
With all due respect to the youthful Kyle Williams, he is simply wrong. He is right, as echoed by the forever resurrected Davy Crockett, that the constitutional basis for foreign disaster relief has been and evidently always will be debated.
For those interested in the early history of our earliest foreign disaster assistance, and the practical purposes it served, I repeat this excerpt from The Demands of Humanity: Army Medical Disaster Relief:
As with aid to the Indians, foreign relief could easily be justified on the basis of recognized constitutional powers. At any rate, Congress early rationalized such measures as legitimate when it considered them to be in the national interest. In 1812 the nation's first foreign disaster assistance mission followed an earthquake in Venezuela that killed 10,000 people in Caracas alone. American newspapers carried accounts of bodies littering the debris and orphaned children wailing for lost parents. Prompted by these reports, Alexander Scott, an American diplomatic representative to Caracas who had not yet departed for his post, urged Congress to send food to the victims. The Venezuelans also requested assistance. Congress responded by appropriating $50,000 for relief supplies to be administered by Scott upon his arrival in the country. Unfortunately, the donation arrived in May but Scott did not land until June. In the meantime, the royalists, then battling revolutionaries for control, seized many of the supplies and did not distribute them. They also impounded the vessels and crews that had brought the supplies and released both only after extended negotiations. But despite all the problems, food reached some of the people and saved them from starvation.
In sending aid, Congress obviously acted from more than purely humanitarian motives. With the outbreak of revolutions in Latin America during the early years of the nineteenth century, American, interest in the region intensified. Many people in the United States believed the times auspicious for establishing closer ties with their neighbors to the south, and many merchants envisioned Latin America as a potentially lucrative market. Scott's instructions left little doubt that, Congress intended the aid as a spur to closer trading ties, for he was directed to let the people of Venezuela know that the relief presented "Strong proof of the friendship and interest which the United States . . . [took] in their welfare . . . [and] to explain the mutual advantages of commerce with the United States."
The refusal of Congress to send aid to the locust-plagued Canary Islands at the same time it approved relief for Venezuela lent further credence to the view that in such matters Congress acted as much from national and mercantile interest as from humanitarian concern. Initially, a single resolution approved aid for both Venezuela and the Canary Islands, but some congressmen insisted upon separate consideration of the two measures. They convinced the House to instruct a committee to explore further the extent of the locust plague and famine in the Canaries. Although the committee reported additional evidence of suffering, the House still balked at sending assistance. Some of the victorious opponents continued to question the severity of the famine, but others doubted whether the relief would contribute to America's national interest. John Rhea, a representative from Tennessee, expressed the feelings of the second group. He opposed aid to the Canary Islands but said he favored an appropriation for Venezuela, with "a regard to the interests of the United States, which peculiarly required them to cultivate amity with and conciliate the South American provinces." The Canary Islands, he implied, did not offer the United States enough to merit assistance.
On two other occasions during the antebellum period, Congress considered proposals to provide disaster assistance to foreign nations. In 1847, after rejecting an appropriation for sufferers in the Irish potato famine, Congress approved the loan of United States naval vessels to transport privately raised supplies. With civilian captains and crews, the United States ships Macedonian and Jamestown ferried 8,000 barrels of grain, meal, clothing, and other essentials to Ireland. Nine years later, however, Congress refused to allow the detail of twenty-five sailors to a private group that needed a crew to sail a relief ship to the drought-stricken Cape Verde Islands. The House voted in favor of the measure, but it died in the Senate; exactly why remained unclear. After the Civil War, Congress still developed no consistent policy; lawmakers approved the use of United States strips in two instances but denied it in a third.
While the approach of Congress to foreign relief was practical, limited, and ad hoc, broader justifications were, occasionally heard. During the debate over an appropriation for aid to Ireland in 1847, Senator John M. Clayton of Delaware proclaimed American abundance to be a sure sign of God's favor and aid an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to the world that "the genius and essential character of our institutions lead us to the indulgence, as a nation, of the best feelings of the human heart, and the noblest impulses which govern and direct the energies of man." Clayton convinced few of his fellow legislators, but a, similar argument in more secular form, that such aid served to advertise the American way of life, would foster increased relief activity abroad during the next century.
Another "conservative" who claims every one of our Founders broke the law.
Every one of our founders gave money to foreign nations.
I hate to see these idiotic attacks on the Constitution like Kyle's. If someone doesn't want to be considered an idiot- would they please address why they think they know the Constitution better than it's authors and ratifiers?
I realize, of course, this canard originates from the illusion that we give foreign aid for altruistic reasons.
People may do so, but our government gives it for selfish- even ugly- reasons. Just as the Founders intended.
Actually it's up to you to explain why the meaning of the Constitution is determined by what its authors did rather than what they wrote.
I propose we give exactly ten times the amount they gave us after the Florida hurricanes.
I second that proposal.
Yeah, a living constitutionalist considers that a truism that doesn't need to be defended. Why is that?
It's idiotic on it's face to interpret the Constituion on the basis that it's written by liars and fools. Though it does lead to some amusing opinions.
I'm tempted to say that somebody's either a "fool or a liar" if he's saying that's what I've said.
It's pretty basic common sense that in order to judge the constitutionality of something, the place to start is by reading the Constitution.
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.