Is foreign aid constitutional?

[A18]

Congress shall have power to expend, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents?

[A18]

Someone want to post the part of the Constitution that authorizes this? It seems like some people's interpretation of that document is "Congress can do whatever the bloodly hell it wants."

[Gabu]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 says that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

It seems to me that this is saying "you can take money out of the treasury and do stuff with it as long as you appropriate it by law".  Given that I can't see anything that says that money can't be appropriated to go towards foreign aid, it appears to me that it is constitutional if proper procedures are followed.

[John Dibble]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 says that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

It seems to me that this is saying "you can take money out of the treasury and do stuff with it as long as you appropriate it by law".  Given that I can't see anything that says that money can't be appropriated to go towards foreign aid, it appears to me that it is constitutional if proper procedures are followed.

That only makes appropriating money for the foreign aid laws constitutional, it doesn't make foreign aid laws constitutional.

[A18]

Actually, it doesn't even do that. That clause says that money can only be appropriated by law. It does not confer upon Congress any additional mandate to spend that they would not have without it.

[Gabu]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 says that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

It seems to me that this is saying "you can take money out of the treasury and do stuff with it as long as you appropriate it by law".  Given that I can't see anything that says that money can't be appropriated to go towards foreign aid, it appears to me that it is constitutional if proper procedures are followed.

That only makes appropriating money for the foreign aid laws constitutional, it doesn't make foreign aid laws constitutional.

Yes, I suppose that's true.  I didn't know he was talking about the laws themselves; I thought he was talking about just spending the money on foreign aid.

[John Dibble]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 says that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

It seems to me that this is saying "you can take money out of the treasury and do stuff with it as long as you appropriate it by law".  Given that I can't see anything that says that money can't be appropriated to go towards foreign aid, it appears to me that it is constitutional if proper procedures are followed.

That only makes appropriating money for the foreign aid laws constitutional, it doesn't make foreign aid laws constitutional.

Yes, I suppose that's true.  I didn't know he was talking about the laws themselves; I thought he was talking about just spending the money on foreign aid.

Well, the two are really intertwined. So, basically it's asking about the concept itself. I stated no, because I can't find anything in the Constitution that justifies it.

[Gabu]

Well, I can't really find anything, given that foreign aid doesn't really count as "commerce".  If it's not constitutional, it should be.

[John Dibble]

Well, I can't really find anything, given that foreign aid doesn't really count as "commerce".  If it's not constitutional, it should be.

Well, that's debateable.

[A18]

I disagree. Instead, Citizens should send aid where they see fit.

[David S]

I disagree. Instead, Citizens should send aid where they see fit.

Philip thats Libertarian philosophy 101 and I agree completely.
Beyond that, the 10th amendment says the federal government only has the powers granted by the constitution, and foreign aid is not one of those powers. That makes it unconstitutional. Unfortunately the American people don't care much about the constitution so government feels free to ignore it.

Your point is exactly right. The people should have the right to send aid as they see fit. Why would anyone want to give government the power to confiscate their money and spend it as government sees fit.

[Lunar]

Foreign Aid is merely part of international diplomacy, no more.

[David S]

Foreign Aid is merely part of international diplomacy, no more.

What part of the constitution authorizes that. If the politicians want to be diplomats let them use their own money.

[Erc]

Well, if you want to view it as part of the treaty clause (which it hasn't been--you don't see the Senate approving it by 2/3's votes)--then it all boils down to another question:  Was the Louisiana Purchase constitutional?  (ie does the enumerated powers section even apply to treaties?)

A case can be made that it doesn't, since treaties are not normal pieces of legislation--they are negotiated by the President, not drafted by Congress--the Senate is simply ratifying the treaty, nothing more.

Questions like this are where I get a bit ancy, personally--as I'm a libertarian domestically (economically more so than socially), but when it comes to foreign policy, no way.  And that's the major reason I still consider myself a Republican, not a Libertarian.

Foreign aid isn't charity--it's a tool to further the interests of the United States (well, that may have come off wrong, but you know what I mean)--qv the Marshall Plan.

[David S]

Well, if you want to view it as part of the treaty clause (which it hasn't been--you don't see the Senate approving it by 2/3's votes)--then it all boils down to another question:  Was the Louisiana Purchase constitutional?  (ie does the enumerated powers section even apply to treaties?)

A case can be made that it doesn't, since treaties are not normal pieces of legislation--they are negotiated by the President, not drafted by Congress--the Senate is simply ratifying the treaty, nothing more.

Questions like this are where I get a bit ancy, personally--as I'm a libertarian domestically (economically more so than socially), but when it comes to foreign policy, no way.  And that's the major reason I still consider myself a Republican, not a Libertarian.

Foreign aid isn't charity--it's a tool to further the interests of the United States (well, that may have come off wrong, but you know what I mean)--qv the Marshall Plan.

The Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional and as I recall Jefferson himself lamented the fact that he had violated it. But that happened two hundred years ago and we can't change it now. However, that doesn't mean that its OK for other presidents to violate the constitution. That would be like saying O.J. Simpson got away with murder so now anyone can commit murder.

As far as treaties go, yes they probably could be used to create legal foreign aid plans, but I don't think the founders intended it that way. And as you point out no such treaty has been signed.

When it comes to foreign aid for security, such as our support for Israel, possibly that can be justified as defense. But when it comes to situations such as the tsunami disaster, I think the government is overstepping its bounds, despite the humanitarian nature of it. Whats wrong with allowing the people to decide how much they wish to spend on it?

One of the reasons I object to government violations of the constitution is that the constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It defines the government, limits the power of government, and protects your rights and mine. Without the constitution our government could become the worst form of tyranny imaginable. When government is allowed to violate the constitution, even for benevolent purposes, it opens the door to further violations, some of which might not be so benign. We should not fall asleep at the switch and assume that government always acts in our best interest. We should be vigilant and hold their feet to the fire when it comes to the constitution.

[Lunar]

Foreign Aid is merely part of international diplomacy, no more.

What part of the constitution authorizes that. If the politicians want to be diplomats let them use their own money.

The US Federal Government isn't allowed to interact with other nations anymore?  Even when it is in our strategic and economic interests?

I would guess that the parts that authoritze treaties would cover this anyway.

If not that, the part that authorizes them to y'know..pass bills and whatnot combined with the lack of any part that forbids foreign aid would combine into a reason.

[Bono]

Foreign Aid is merely part of international diplomacy, no more.

What part of the constitution authorizes that. If the politicians want to be diplomats let them use their own money.

The US Federal Government isn't allowed to interact with other nations anymore?  Even when it is in our strategic and economic interests?

I would guess that the parts that authoritze treaties would cover this anyway.

If not that, the part that authorizes them to y'know..pass bills and whatnot combined with the lack of any part that forbids foreign aid would combine into a reason.

Better yet, let's just consider foreign aid interestate comerce and get done with it.

[A18]

Treaties have to be ratified by a 2/3 vote. If this aid was being passed as a treaty, that would be technically constitutional, but a dishonorable loophole.

Lunar, there is no "Congress can pass bills" part of the Constitution. It only has power to do specific things.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So, Philip, does that mean you would've opposed aid to Marcos-era Phillipines, apartheid-era South Africa, South Vietnam, etc. during the Cold War?

[A18]

No, because that's actually a foreign policy interest. This is just charity, and can (and should) be done by individuals.

[Lunar]

No, because that's actually a foreign policy interest.

I strongly consider foreign aid to be our foreign policy interest.  If you don't consider anti-Americanism to be a good thing strategically to curb, especially in the world's larget Muslim population, then you need a bop on the head.

It seems you consider only things you disagree with personally to be Unconstitutional.

[A18]

I just said: it's TECHNICALLY CONSTIUTIONAL but I don't like, because it's just charity.

I don't want government giving away charity to curb anti-Americanism. If the American people are good enough for the world, they'll give away their money willingly. If we're not, we deserve what we get.

[Lunar]

I just said: it's TECHNICALLY CONSTIUTIONAL but I don't like, because it's just charity.

When did you say that?  I looked through the thread again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The American people can't be expected to conduct foreign policy to increase our relations with other states let alone in a timely matter.

If you disagree that it's the best way, then that's fine.  It doesn't change the purpose for acting (and whether it's in our foreign policy interest and thus Constitutional by your arguments).

[A18]

The one right above BRTD's:

Treaties have to be ratified by a 2/3 vote. If this aid was being passed as a treaty, that would be technically constitutional, but a dishonorable loophole.

Lunar, there is no "Congress can pass bills" part of the Constitution. It only has power to do specific things.

But then it has to be passed by a 2/3 vote in the Senate, which this aid is not.

[Lunar]

My mistake on that point.