Posted on 09/24/2005 11:01:00 AM PDT by billbears
What is the proper constitutional role for the federal government in the post-Katrina reconstruction of the Gulf Coast? Should not this subject be debated seriously before Congress mortgages generations of Americans yet unborn with the obligation to repay $200 billion in loans? Don't expect it.
The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives already signaled its intention to stifle such debate when it refused to allow members of the House to consider an amendment to a bill that allocated the initial $62 billion in funds to Katrina victims. The amendment would have directed federal departments and agencies to look for ways to offset waste, so as to recapture at best a portion of the funds. In a now infamous statement, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican from Texas, stated that Republican budget surgeons had already cut out all the waste in the federal government, so if nothing else can be cut, why bother with debate?
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Either way, create a coop insurance system within their communities.
...
I say this because at the rate insurance companies are getting hammered and thus hammering the insured across the board it simply can't continue this way. In my area alone there are too many people who sign up for insurance just to get their drivers license because it is the law but then when they get the license they dump their insurance because they can not afford it. Something has got to give sooner than later.
Beyond search and rescue, there's no proper role for the Federal government in the reconstruction following a hurricane. Are the victims of Rita going to get debit cards? Will there be federal repair of the Galveston seawall? How about the victims of hurricanes past?
I am with you on the corporate tax dodge thing...I am a flat taxer all the way...consumption based tax would be a great thing (except to those employed by the industry) i think everyone should pay the same percentage of their transactions or salary...don't you agree?
"Usually," is the key word in this matter.
As for the flat tax, I'm not a fan in its present configuration. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it smell any better.
"The federal government has no role to play under the Constitution in the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast.
Or any other place hit by a natural disaster."
Your EXACTLY RIGHT. Free enterprise is supposed to do it, not TAX money.
The Constitution wasn't written for "Constitutional lawyer"s. It was plainly written and expounded on by many letters by the founders.
Only a lawyer could misread it.
Well, straight away, we got a letter from the company we were dumping, stating they had notified the DMV, we were not carrying auto insurance.
I LOL, b/c what they didn't know is the new company had us covered before the old one was invalid.
"Only a lawyer could misread it."
.... intentionally for monetary gain. The current wave.
Article the first [Not Ratified]
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
That's the first article in the BOR, as submitted. Even the blind can understand that we are not represented when one person "represents" over 500,000 citizens.
Bingo!
Please take the time to read your constitution... Read it, know it, and love it.
In fact, Bush, as PRESIDENT does have Constitutional power to call for the funds to rebuild New Orleans. He does NOT have the unilateral power to appropriate the funds. And I do not believe he has ever suggested otherwise.
Please read Article II, Section 3...
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."
IT IS FULLY WITHIN HIS POWER TO CALL FOR THE REBUILDING OF NEW ORLEANS, EVEN TO CALL FOR ITS FUNDING BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
However, it is up to Congress to carry through with that.
Congress' power to perform these acts rests clearly in Article I, Sections 7 and 8,
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the **common Defence and general Welfare of the United States**..."
So, while I do NOT agree that these clauses provide for the current socialist form of government we have today (based on my study of the founding fathers), I DO believe that the Constitution does provide for securing FEDERAL resources in cases of disasters which have National significance.
Do I like it, NO WAY!!! I don't want my taxes to pay for the rebuilding of a city that should have never been built below sea level! Are both Bush and the Congress properly authorized to carry out these actions by the Constitution? I think yes!
ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com
BINGO!
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution. [ref: Veto of federal public works bill (March 3, 1817)
Bush as President has the right to call for whatever he wants to. If he wants to stand on top of the White House and call for every school to serve only grape koolaid, he can. Although he has no power to enact it. The same with Congress
As for 'general welfare', I would refer you specifically to Madison, the Father of the Constitution, for his view on that clause.
.....The federal government has no role to play under the Constitution in the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast......
Interstate commerce will be curtailed as a result of infrastructure loss. The federal infrastructure must be returned to working order.
I was really talking about a consumption based point of sale tax on all transactions. What don't you like about it?
what did i misread? not a lawyer by the way...lol
You might be able to make the case for emergency funding to lend immediate assistence to people who are starving, sick and indigent due to a man-made or natural disaster. But rebuilding NO and the entire Gulf Coast isn't in the constitutional power of the federal government. That is the job of local and state governments. Besides, this is a free country and people choose were they want to live. If you choose to live in an area of the country known for natural disasters its up to you to make arrangements for insurance and other such things, that will protect your property.
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.