Why is foreign aid unconstitutional?

[MRoCkEd]

Someone's justification for foreign aid:


Look at Section 8:

1. "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence"

3. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations ..."

And, if you'd like me to spell it out for you: foreign aid is given to either (a) help our allies (that would be Clause 1) and/or (b) help our commerce, with countries overseas being in a better position to buy our products (that would be Clause 3).


What's a good response to this?

[MRoCkEd]

/\

[danberkeley]

He/she misunderstands the meaning of regulate (especially in how it was used when the Constitution was signed). It's not regulate in the sense of making laws or to control. But it is regulate in the sense of normalizing or make regular.

"provide common defense" does not equal "give foreign aid". You gotta be an idiot or a major FAIL! to think that.

[Austin]

I don't know that it is unconstitutional, perhaps it is. However, foreign aid is irrational and leads to unintended consequences. In the end, we are hurting ourselves and those we are trying to help. Sorry I couldn't answer your question.

[Matt Collins]

10th Amendment - if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, the US government isn't allowed to do it.

[constitutional]

Someone's justification for foreign aid:


What's a good response to this?

Foreign aid is not illegal. Whether it's good or bad is the question. French during the revolution provided us with aid (which I believe we had to pay back), it was good for us.

Each foreign aid summons a unique argument. The Marshall Plan (free money), which gave $13 billion to Europe for rebuilding purpose, was a bad choice. It advocated central economic policy.

I highly recommend you read this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Criticism

[mediahasyou]

What's a good response to this?

The constitution has no authority.

[Sergeant Brother]

Interpreting foreign aid to fall under "providing for common defense" or "regulate commerce" are both pretty liberal definitions for a document which is meant to limit the powers of the federal government particularly in light of the 10th Amendment.

[nodope0695]

Find for me in the Constitution where it gives government the authority to literally give our money away to other nations.

That will answer you question, bucause it AIN'T IN THERE.

[nobody's_hero]

Dr. Paul on the dilemma of foreign aid. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul363.html)

[qh4dotcom]

Ask that dummy if the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution ever gave away foreign aid to another country.

[sratiug]

Find for me in the Constitution where it gives government the authority to literally give our money away to other nations.

That will answer you question, bucause it AIN'T IN THERE.

edit for accuracy...


Find for me in the Constitution where it gives government the authority to literally give our money away.

That will answer you question, bucause it AIN'T IN THERE.

Someone needs to find the part granting authority to give domestic aid before they start looking for the part granting authority for foreign aid. I can't seem to find it.

[paulpwns]

Foreign aid is fine, but it is never getting to the people that really need it. So if we wish to continue to empower terrorists and radicals we should keep sending it, or find a way to make it work.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Someone's justification for foreign aid:


What's a good response to this?

Rule #10. The debt of the people should not be burdened with any legal counterfeit created by any foreign or domestic tyranny. (If THE PEOPLE must spend 20 trillion to fix a national dinner table created by a tyranny who spent 10 trillion to divide it so, so be it. The people must own the purse!)

We fail in how we divide those who have, from those who don't. Our political partisanship is determined more by the issue of money rather than by the issue of power. But power (tyranny) victimizes the wealthy just as much as it does the poor.

This nation's tyranny has developed their own counterfeit economy -- one which is adjusted for inflation -- while the rest of us have to live in the real economy -- one which, while it is insured up to $100,000, is not insured against inflation.

Tyranny in the United States is defined differently from other nations in that such corruption requires the cooperation of all 3 branches of government -- Executive, Legislature, and Congress. This has become the case today as each of the 3 branches have conspired against "The People and their posteriety" to partake in their own little counterfeit economy.

Think of what it takes to keep big daddy from carousing the nudey bars: 1) quit giving him money by tightening the purse, 2) quit allowing him to barter with those who own the nudey bars, and, finally, 3) quit allowing him to print his own money.

When tyranny is made to live in the same real economy as the people, then tyranny, which is necessary, becomes responsible.

Correcting this severe inequity will quickly improve our national economy.

[nelsonwinters]

One thing to also consider is whether or not the money to pay for such things as foreign aid is being generated in a constitutional matter. I guess hand in hand with whether it is constitutional to give foreign aid, is it constitution for us to borrow from other counties. It does seem strange that we do both. And of course there's the whole constitutionality of the Fed or taxes on labor, but I'm not trying to hijack this thread.