>>>I asked you how Ron Paul would explain Congress’ action since tribute isn’t addressed in the Consitution.<<<
You asked me to answer a question based on a false premise. Besides that wasn’t your question, anyway. Your question was: “If Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, then how does he explain Congress’ action here, and his own interpretation of the Constitution regarding foreign aid.”
And I explained to you that tribute had nothing to do with foreign aid (therefore your question was meaningless). I’ll try again.
Tribute is extortion money, more or less. Foreign aid is charity.
>>>It’s not unreasonable to assume that whatever authority the founders used to appropriate funds for tribute, can also be applied to foreign aid.<<<
To the contrary. Tribute payment falls under national defense, in the context of the Barbary Pirates, since we did not have a Navy at that time and could not protect our citizens and sea lanes any other way. It was “protection money”. Foreign aid falls under charity, but forced charity, whereby the citizens are forced by government to give charity to a foreign nation.
>>>You understand very well what the argument is here, but you continue to dodge it.<<<
Of course I understand your argument, and it was based on a false premise. I am beginning to believe you don’t even know what you wrote. Anyway, it appears you like to argue for the sake of arguing. I am no longer surprised.
You know what...I give up. I give you guys the opportunity to demonstrate the oft repeated claim that Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, and all you do is dance around the argument. You guys are nothing but a bunch of hot air.