Federal Katrina Spending

[A18]

Definitely not.

Congress has power to tax and spend only for the general welfare.

[Jake]

Few care

[MODU]

Definitely not.

Congress has power to tax and spend only for the general welfare.

Last time I checked, making sure that we don't have a regional economic collapse as well as trying to keep thousands if not millions from living in shelters and being unemployed qualifies as falling under "general welfare."  Otherwise, the rest of the country will suffer from our non-action.

[opebo]

Obviously it is, and the wefare concerned is general because it is the payout of 'social insurance', which would cover any citizen in a similar situation.  In the same way, a social safety net or 'welfare' is for the general welfare.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Definitely not.

Congress has power to tax and spend only for the general welfare.

LOL

[A18]

The welfare concerned here is local, not general.

[Democratic Hawk]

The SCOTUS would take the view that if you don't like how Congress is spending your money then vote them out - and that's the way it should to be in any democracy. Constitutional or not I'd doubt they'd rule that it wasn't

Dave

[A18]

The SCOTUS would take the view that if you don't like how Congress is spending your money then vote them out - and that's the way it should to be in any democracy.

What an absurd post. The Constitution is above democracy.

[MODU]

The welfare concerned here is local, not general.

No, it's regional, spanning 5 states. 

[A18]

Right. So local, not general.

[Democratic Hawk]

The SCOTUS would take the view that if you don't like how Congress is spending your money then vote them out - and that's the way it should to be in any democracy.

What an absurd post. The Constitution is above democracy.

Well, it's what would happen according to Andrew Napolitano

Dave

[A18]

I wasn't disagreeing that's what our worthless Supreme Court would do. I was disagreeing with the idea that that's what they should do.

[MODU]

Right. So local, not general.

No, that's regional with a lasting national impact.  Therefore, being more of a single state issue, it is constitutional.  Hell, if it was just New Orleans alone, shutting down the Mississippi river to ocean-going trade, it would still be a national issue due to the economic impact upon the nation.

General welfare means national welfare.  If something is threatening our national economy, then it falls under the general welfare.

The only way it wouldn't would be if the storm wiped out an area in Texas which was not heavily populated, did not have any form of major commerce, nor interrupted the national flow of business and defense.  In that case, state, local, and private groups would take the burden of rebuilding, and not the federal.

[A18]

General means nation, as distinguished from local. Something is not the "general welfare" because it has an impact on the national economy. That test is so flawed, if you told it to big government Hamilton, he'd laugh in your face.

[MaC]

c'mon Phillip, look at all those pork-barrel measures.  It's not really any different.  Only real difference is the amount of money going into it.

[MODU]

How can you say 5 states is "local?"  Hell, you don't even need to use the commerce clause to show that 5 states is a national issue.

[A18]

The general welfare clause allows the federal government to pursue interests that are firmly outside the natural sphere of the states, as the Supreme Court correctly held in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

[MODU]

The general welfare clause allows the federal government to pursue interests that are firmly outside the natural sphere of the states, as the Supreme Court correctly held in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

Exactly.  That is why this falls under it.  There is no way the states alone can shoulder the burden of recover and rebuilding without federal funding.  And since this is a multi-state disaster, effecting the nation as a whole, the federal government has to be involved.  Therefore, it's Constitutional.

[A18]

An interstate highway system is general. Building a single road in Alaska is local. It doesn't matter whether or not Alaska can afford the road.

The interest is only general if it is, by its nature, national, and not local.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Listen, I don't like the process of this Katrina spending (I'm not opposed to the spending, but to the process). I know it's all going to go to Bush's cronies. It doesn't have oversight like the New Deal had. But despite that, there's nothing unconstitutional about it.

[A18]

That's not an argument. All you said is that it's not unconstitutional.

[MODU]

The interest is only general if it is, by its nature, national, and not local.

Exactly.  And you cannot prove that the disaster reconstruction effort of the Gulf Coast area is a "local" issue, since it's not.  That's why it's not "unConstitutional."

[A18]

The interest is only general if it is, by its nature, national, and not local.

Exactly.

I'm glad you agree with me that this is unconstitutional, then.

[Emsworth]

The word "general" is a close synonym for "federal" or "national" (for example, as today we speak of the "federal government," the Framers spoke of the "general government"). There is undoubtedly a distinction between "general" and "local" welfare; the two are not the same, as the Supreme Court accepted in U.S. v. Butler.

This was the interpretation of Alexander Hamilton (which was, in fact, deemed too broad by James Madison). In his Report on Manufacturers, this Framer said, "The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase [General Welfare] is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact ... throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."

Therefore, it does not matter if the indirect effects of the appropriation help the country. Federal spending under the general welfare clause must directly operate "throughout the Union."

[opebo]

An interstate highway system is general. Building a single road in Alaska is local. It doesn't matter whether or not Alaska can afford the road.

The interest is only general if it is, by its nature, national, and not local.

Therefore, it does not matter if the indirect effects of the appropriation help the country. Federal spending under the general welfare clause must directly operate "throughout the Union."

You two are failing to observe the real world as it functions, and are living in your 'libertarian' fantasy.  All roads are 'national' in that they all feed into the national road system, and all economic functions, regulations and acts are completely integrated in the national economy.  The states are just an silly anachronism that are best utilized as bureaucratic divisions, not independent sources of policy making.