What clause of the Constitution authorizes aid to NO?

[cropcirclewalker]

Wow, I guess I am asking for the flames that must surely follow, but I just read the Constitution again, trying to figure out why the fed .gov was so retarded in their supplication of aid to those poor needy people in New Orleans.

Article 1, section 8 lists all that which Congress has the power to do. Is it

Clause 1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

?

Would it be common Defence and general Welfare? It looks to me (and Davy Crockett, if I remember correctly) like the common defence and general Welfare should apply over the entire Union, not just a separate area. Get it, "Uniform througout the United States". I could be wrong. I have been wrong before.

Just asking.


If the feds rebuild NO doesn't that mean that they will have to rebuild everywhere that gets blowed over and flooded?

Was that what we had in mind when we formed this union?

 

[publius]

Would it be common Defence and general Welfare?

No.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031001.shtml

James Madison is the Constitution's acknowledged "father," and here's what he had to say: "With respect to the two words ‘general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson echoed similar sentiments, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

-James Madison

But I'd have to say, if a homegrown cannabis plant or machine gun for personal consumption is interstate commerce, the destruction of a major city and a few smaller ones probably is as well...

 

[Azrael256]

Madison's argument is legal, and that's good. We need laws. My argument is moral, and is equally valid. We both come to the same conclusion.

I don't mind paying to rebuild any American city destroyed by disaster. I don't mind feeding hungry people. I don't mind doing more than my share to provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare. You can put that in whatever social or religious context you believe appropriate to motivate yourself to do the same. Giving is giving, and it's my favorite thing to do.

Government robs me of the ability to give in love, and prevents the recipients from receiving what I want them to have.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

Once upon a time in America...

 

[cropcirclewalker]

From responses so far, it appears that there is no authorization. Hey, I feel real bad for those victims of the natural disaster.

Is there really a victim of a natural disaster? I can see somebody walking along on a golf course and getting caught in a sudden thunderstorm and gets whacked by lightening. A natural disaster.

If somebody goes camping and pitches a tent on the interstate and gets run over by a semi.......That is not a natural disaster.

Almost all disasters are caused by behaviour. Behaviour incurred.
Smokers catch cancer.
Drinkers catch scirossis(sp?) of the liver.
Druggers fry their brains.
Big Fat people catch type II diabetes.
People who live below sea level and don't evacuate will get flooded.
People who must live on fault lines get earth quaked.
People who live on the plains will get tornadoed.
People who live in North Dakota will get blizzarded.
People who live in the Ozarks get bit by ticks.
What is new?

You takes your pick, you takes your chances.

That's life.

Yes, if you want to contribute, please do so. Voluntary charitible contribution. That is the American way. What is NOT the American way is to reach into your neighbors pocket and contribute for him too. That is theft.

Please do not think that the fed .gov is authorized or even required to fix all this mess. If you do, you have become a socialist and you don't even know it.

There, somebody had to say it.

 

[Kim]

One thing socialism does is squash true charity and giving. Theological liberalism that started around Marx time as a way to try and mesh christianity with socialism just does not work. It contradicts the Bible and to make it work you have to ignore the Bible or twist it in so many knots it really makes no sense. Some thing has been done to the Constitution but not as much YET! Same with Liberation theology.

 

[Sam]

Don't see anything in the Constitution that says a thing about it.
I can tolerate it a lot better than any of the 70 some odd welfare programs they Feds run though.

Sam

 

[AZRickD]

Please don't drag me into this debate, but here is one tenuous link...

Article II, the Congress shall have the Power to...

Clause 1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

--the question is, what are the limits of providing for the Gen-Welfare? Horrific natural disasters? I'd argue yes.

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

--what are the laws governing natural disasters? Are they constitutional?

Likely so.

Rick

 

[publius]

I tend to agree with Sam. I have lots of complaints higher on my list than using the feds to deal w/disasters.

RickD,

The welfare clause is an invitation to unlimited federal power, which is why Madison and Jefferson said the things I quoted about it. Your argument is basically, if it seems like a good idea, the feds should have the power to do it. While I admit that this is the system we have, in practice, let's not pretend that it's constitutional under the welfare clause. We're too busy pretending that it's constitutional under the commerce clause.

There does seem to be a need to continue to suppress insurrection down in Nawlins right now.

 

[GAMALOT]

Actually, the federal govt. has no business going into any state unless specifically asked to do so by the govenor of that state.
If an Insurection is declared, the feds can take power but short of that the state has the ultimate decision as to what is done and who has the right to help.
Remember, the govenor of LA. was asked if she wanted help by the President and her response was "I need 24 hours to decide".
The Mayor of NO never called for "MANDATORY EVACUATION" until Wednesday by which time no City owned Busse could be commandeered to do the job because the water was already too high.
The National guard has the duty to be the cops "WHEN AUTHORIZED" by the Govenor.
Alot of incompetent officials dropped the ball or held it way too long here.
FEMA is taking the brunt of the blame yet Fema has no cops and no rescue teams stratigically placed around the country. They work in conjunction with other agencies who do have those capabilities.
I don't want the feds comming to NY and taking over my states government unless my states government asks for help.
Gary

 

[cdpruden]

I tend to think this might be relevant, its a speech by David Crockett on a similar thought:

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5350

 

[crewsr]

great posts on this one.

Kim +1

 

[ctdonath]

Perhaps the Founding Fathers were a little closer to nature, and a little less inclined to do something so fundamentally stupid as build an entire city below sea level, then be surprised when it floods.

I'd lean toward there not being a Constitutional basis for rebuilding NO. Seems there's a huge "provide for the general welfare" argument for NOT rebuilding NO (wasn't real healthy the first time...).

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. cdpruden, thanks fer the link

That's the Davy Crockett I was thinking about in the first post.

Upon reading it again, he was driving the tack right upon it's head.

I do not think FEMA has any constitutional authority except in cases of invasions and innsurrections (the latter of which is questionable in view of the Declaration of Independence)

Yes, Virginia, we have waded so deep into socialism that to turn back is as arduous as to go on.

 

[WYO]

One of the founding fathers bought Louisiana and New Orleans with it, and exploited it as a port and government presence that served the national interest.

 

[armedandsafe]

The "general welfare" clause will be stretched just as far as they can, because it gives them further inroads into managing our lives and thoughts. The original intent, plainly stated by the Founders, has no relavance to these ninnies.

Just a point of (my) interest: NO was not built below sea level. Have you ever stepped into wet sand at the shore and left a footprint which quickly filled with water. Think of the mega-tons of NO city, buildings, sidewalks, roads, et al, laid atop Mississippi mud. Then pump out the water in the mud to dry it out. The city sinks, doesn't it? DUH

Pops

 

[GAMALOT]

QUOTE- ARMEDANDSAFE;
The "general welfare" clause will be stretched just as far as they can, because it gives them further inroads into managing our lives and thoughts. The original intent, plainly stated by the Founders, has no relavance to these ninnies.

Yep, Just like the right to "keep and bare arms".
These a-holes will jump on any bandwagon that plays their tune or allows them to duck their responsibility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gary

 

[griz]

The heartless libertarian that lives inside of me says the constitution does not provide for aid or charity. But a compassionate conservative lives inside of me too and believes with just as much conviction that it is wrong to let your neighbor die when you can prevent it. So the two of them talked it out and decided to be pragmatic. The fed.gov has the helicopters, navy ships, and massive resources to save those lives so they should do that. That is lifesaving aid. After that, the states and various charities should help these folks back on their feet. Rebuilding should be left to the state and insurance companies. Now I realize that isn't a perfect solution, but it's what those two guys came up with, who am I to argue?

By the way, the libertarian pointed out that if the gov wasn't skiming 25% off the top, the charity of Americans would be even greater. Note that the much maligned Wal-mart had several truckloads of water delievered to NOLA, Wednsday IIRC, and FEMA turned them away. Just another example of private industry doing a better job than big brother.

Also: While many could and should have seen this coming and took steps to save themselves, some could not. Think about those little kids who's only sin was picking incompetent parents. Surely it was an unforeseeable natural disaster for them. And even the folks that made the mistake of staying there in the face of a cat 4 storm. We save other people who make dumb mistakes, running red lights, surfing in heavy seas, drug overdoses, etc. Hard to throw the storm victims down the drain when we save other imperfect individuals.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You said:

The heartless libertarian that lives inside of me says the constitution does not provide for aid or charity. But a compassionate conservative lives inside of me too and believes with just as much conviction that it is wrong to let your neighbor die when you can prevent it.

The problem with your position is that in order to create a Federal Government powerful enough to do the things you want it to do, you need to make one which would be a great threat to our liberties. That is exactly why the Founders did not give the Federal Government much power when it comes to internal matters. Those were for the States exclusively. State governments are safer with such powers because their governments are under more immediate control of their citizens, and worst comes to worst, you can move to a better state if you hate your State's government, and cannot alter it at the polls, but you cannot move to a different America if the Federal Government becomes abusive of power.

My favorite quote, lately, relative to this general point from the Federalist Papers, is this one by Madison, the Father of the Constitutin:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

PS All of your appeals to our heart strings should not be appeals for a more powerful Federal Government, but one made to encourage voluntary giving of aid to these people. Americans are a generaous people. Stealing from them via the Federal Government has suppressed that over the years, but if the Federal Government actually did only what it was legally authorized to do, the charity of Americans would equal, I'm sure, what it was prior to the New Deal, which was tremendous as a percentage of the GDP.

 

[griz]

Actually Hawkeye, I agree with you. I don't want a government as big as it is, I just recognize that it will be a huge collection of resources until the majority of voters want it to shrink. And I don't view heartstring appeals as requests for big government, although I realize that it's the first thing that comes to mind for many people.

It's taken more than 60 years to teach people that the government is (and should be) there to take care of them. It will be a long time before that changes, and we can't let every fool die in the meantime.

 

[AZRickD]

RickD,

The welfare clause is an invitation to unlimited federal power, which is why Madison and Jefferson said the things I quoted about it. Your argument is basically,

It is not *my* argument. It is *an* argument. As I said, I don't wish to be dragged into this debate on the merits.

Rick

 

[yucaipa]

The fastest way for President Bush to by-pass New Orleans & Baton Rouge (politics) would have been to claim an insurrection once the looting started. I understand why he didn't,If he had, we wouldn't be hearing "Bush doesn't like black people" we be hearing," Bush thinks black people are traitors."


Section 4 of Article IV.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."





http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi


[Title 32, Volume 2]
[Revised as of July 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 32CFR215.4]

[Page 388-389]

TITLE 32--NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (CONTINUED)

PART 215_EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY RESOURCES IN THE EVENT OF CIVIL
DISTURBANCES--Table of Contents

Sec. 215.4 Legal considerations.

(a) Under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the
protection of life and property and the maintenance of public order are
primarily the responsibilities of State and local governments, which
have the necessary authority to enforce the laws. The Federal Government
may assume this responsibility and this authority only in certain
limited instances.
(b) Aside from the constitutional limitations of the power of the
Federal Government at the local level, there are additional legal limits
upon the use of military forces within the United States. The most
important of these from a civil disturbance standpoint is the Posse
Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385), which prohibits the use of any part of
the Army or the Air Force to execute or enforce the laws, except as
authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.
(c) The Constitution and Acts of Congress establish six exceptions,
generally applicable within the entire territory of the United States,
to which the Posse Comitatus Act prohibition does not apply.
(1) The constitutional exceptions are two in number and are based
upon the inherent legal right of the U.S. Government--a sovereign
national entity under the Federal Constitution--to insure the
preservation of public order and the carrying out of governmental

[[Page 389]]

operations within its territorial limits, by force if necessary.
(i) The emergency authority. Authorities prompt and vigorous Federal
action, including use of military forces, to prevent loss of life or
wanton destruction of property and to restore governmental functioning
and public order when sudden and unexpected civil disturbances,
disasters, or calamities seriously endanger life and property and
functions to such an extent that duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situations.
Protection of Federal property and functions. Authorizes Federal action, includdisrupt normal governmental ing the use of military forces, to protect Federal property and Federal governmental functions when the need for protection
exists and duly constituted local authorities are unable or decline to
provide adequate protection.
(2) There are four exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act based on
Acts of Congress.
(i) In the cases of each of the first three of those described,
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) (a), (b), and (c) of this section, personal
Presidential action, including the issuance of a proclamation calling
upon insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably within a limited time,
is a prerequisite.
(a) 10 U.S.C. 331. Authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces
when a State is unable to control domestic violence, and a request for
Federal assistance has been made by the State legislature or governor to
the President. Implements Article IV, section 4, of the Constitution.
(b) 10 U.S.C. 332. Authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces to
enforce Federal law when unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the
authority of the United States renders ordinary enforcement means
unworkable. Implements Article II, section 3, of the Constitution.
(c) 10 U.S.C. 333. Authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces
when domestic violence or conspiracy hinders execution of State or
Federal law, and a State cannot or will not protect the constitutional
rights of the citizens. Implements Article II, section 3, and the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution.
(d) House Joint Resolution 1292, June 6, 1968.\1\ Directs all
departments of the Government, upon the request of the Secret Service,
to assist that Service in carrying out its statutory duties to protect
Government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.
Assistance to the Secret Service is governed by DoD Directive 3025.13,
``Employment of Department of Defense Resources in Support of the United
States Secret Service,'' July 15, 1968.\2\