Free Republic stands for God and Country!!
Stand with Free Republic.
Donate today! Git R Done!!
Day 51
Posted on 05/21/2013 3:36:16 PM PDT by redreno
Coburn is sticking to his fiscally conservative principles, even after a twister killed at least 24 of his constituents On Tuesday morning, emergency responders began dealing with the aftermath of a tornado that killed at least 24 people in Moore, Okla., and injured at least 140 more. The White House has announced that "the administration and FEMA stand ready to provide all available assistance in response to the severe weather."
However, one of the state's two Republican senators, Tom Coburn, wants to put a stipulation on that offer: No federal aid without corresponding federal budget cuts.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
/johnny
The Constitutional question is a close call, I think. I just did some quick Google research on the history of Federal disaster relief bills, and it appears that the first one was passed in 1803, to provide relief to Portsmouth, NH following a massive fire. Certainly an argument can be made that if Congress in 1803 (which, I believe, included at least a few people who signed the Constitution) thought that such a bill was Constitutional (perhaps because it was "necessary and proper" to help rebuild Portsmouth in order to carry out some other power of the Federal government) implies that similar bills today are likewise Constitutional.
The thing people often forget about the Constitution is that it was the product of significant compromises between opposing factions, and that even at the time it was ratified, there was significant debate as to what the powers Federal government did and did not have. Look at McCulloch v. Maryland and the debate over the creation of a national bank, for just one example.
I'll take it! Doesn't matter if South Dakota hasn't had any tornados lately. ANY federal pork for SD is good pork
At this point the only thing left is for government to take all my money and an allowance.
It isn’t about getting along.
And, that’s not what got us into this mess.
SnakeDoc
/johnny
In this case, the right thing Constitutionally could end up being a major PR loss. Don’t fight just to fight. Fight to win.
We won’t win a fight started today about whether its best to deny federal assistance to tornado victims. Fighting dumb and losing pisses me off ... and I find little consolation in ‘well, at least we fought’. We’re smarter than this.
SnakeDoc
/johnny
It isn’t about getting anything from liberals. Its about not becoming a goddam caricature. Fighting against aide for tornado victims within 24-hours of the storm is walking into a trap. And, it won’t make a bit of difference toward your goal anyway.
Leave meaningless, and stupid, symbolic gestures for the left. Lets aim for EFFECTIVE fights ... not symbolic fights that are unwinnable.
100% downside on this. All symbolism, no substance ... all defeat, no chance of victory.
SnakeDoc
And Coburn isn't just today fighting against this kind of crap. He caught heck for it on Sandy.
/johnny
Correct. FEMA is a cluster****. I say this as someone who used to work with them extensively.
Standing on principle is good PR in the long run.
/johnny
After doing some scratching, there appear to be major constitutional differences between places like Portsmouth, Maine, and New York versus Moore, Oklahoma where federal versus state jurisdictions are concerned, differences which would likely have constitutionally justified the Relief Act of 1803 for Portsmouth imo, as opposed to Moore. From Wikipedia, please consider the following.
Prior to 1930sA series of devastating fires struck the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, early in the 19th century. The 7th U.S. Congress passed a measure in 1803 that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants by extending the time they had for remitting tariffs on imported goods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster.
Between 1803 and 1930, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times for relief or compensation after a disaster. Examples include the waiving of duties and tariffs to the merchants of New York City after the Great Fire of New York (1835). After President Abraham Lincoln's assassination at John T. Ford's Theatre, the 54th Congress passed legislation compensating those who were injured in the theater. --Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wikipedia
First, and I stand to be possibly corrected on this assertion, but note that the "relief" that Congress provided in these cities was evidently tax relief on deadlines for tariffs on imported goods, as opposed to providing food and shelter for victims of natural or manmade disasters.
As a side note, I'm going to call the relief that Congress provided for people injured in the theater where Lincoln was assinated as constitutionally unjustifiable, although not surprising with respect to that period.
Getting back to Portsmouth, given the tax relief that Congress provided, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Clause 18 of Section 8, may not have been the constitutional justification for the Relief Act. This is because Clause 17 of that section gives Congress jurisdiction over dock-yards which both Portsmouth and New York have, the previously mentioned relief on deadlines for taxes unsurprisingly being for federal taxes.
As I mentioned in previous post, I think that it would be great if feds provided relief for natural disasters like the one in Moore, Oklahoma. But let's work within the framework of the Constitution for such relief by properly amending the Constitution to grant Congress the specific power to tax and spend for such a purpose.
After doing some scratching, there appear to be major constitutional differences between places like Portsmouth, Maine, and New York versus Moore, Oklahoma where federal versus state jurisdictions are concerned, differences which would likely have constitutionally justified the Relief Act of 1803 for Portsmouth imo, as opposed to Moore. From Wikipedia, please consider the following.
Prior to 1930sA series of devastating fires struck the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, early in the 19th century. The 7th U.S. Congress passed a measure in 1803 that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants by extending the time they had for remitting tariffs on imported goods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster.
Between 1803 and 1930, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times for relief or compensation after a disaster. Examples include the waiving of duties and tariffs to the merchants of New York City after the Great Fire of New York (1835). After President Abraham Lincoln's assassination at John T. Ford's Theatre, the 54th Congress passed legislation compensating those who were injured in the theater. --Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wikipedia
First, and I stand to be possibly corrected on this assertion, but note that the "relief" that Congress provided in these cities was evidently tax relief on deadlines for tariffs on imported goods, as opposed to providing food and shelter for victims of natural or manmade disasters.
As a side note, I'm going to call the relief that Congress provided for people injured in the theater where Lincoln was assinated as constitutionally unjustifiable, although not surprising with respect to that period.
Getting back to Portsmouth, given the tax relief that Congress provided, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Clause 18 of Section 8, may not have been the constitutional justification for the Relief Act. This is because Clause 17 of that section gives Congress jurisdiction over dock-yards which both Portsmouth and New York have, the previously mentioned relief on deadlines for taxes unsurprisingly being for federal taxes.
As I mentioned in previous post, I think that it would be great if feds provided relief for natural disasters like the one in Moore, Oklahoma. But let's work within the framework of the Constitution for such relief by properly amending the Constitution to grant Congress the specific power to tax and spend for such a purpose.
Thanks for doing the additional digging I didn’t have time to do. I agree that disaster relief expenditures would be more Constitutionally defensible with an amendment that explicitly allowed for such expenditures. Unfortunately, I also think that’s an awfully tough bell to un-ring at this point.
Also, re: the Lincoln assassination relief bill - I actually think that was the most Constitutionally justifiable bill of the examples in the Wikipedia article - Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the District of Columbia].”
Sorry for double post.
Thank you for that correction about Ford Theater. I overlooked that it is in DC and covered under Clause 17 of Section 8 for any excuse that Congress wants to spend money, as opposed to being justified as federal relief.
All the Federal Government "Help" is why State and Local governments have become fiscally irresponsible -- i.e. "can't take care of themselves."
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.