Constitutionality of federal assistance for other countries hit by natural disaster

[huckans]

Title of the post says it all. Anyone want to take a shot at it?

[coyote_sprit]

Let's see what Madison has to say. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=226581)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Theres no Constitutionality to give Federal Assistance to American citizens, therefore none to other countries.


http://mises.org/story/1129
http://mises.org/daily/3627


[Of President Grover Cleveland's 584 vetoes, that of the "Texas Seed Bill" (February 16, 1887) may be the most famous. Members of Congress wanted to help suffering farmers in the American West, but Cleveland rejected their bill, citing the limited mission of the general government and arguing that private charity and already-existing government programs should furnish the necessary aid.]
Stephen Grover Cleveland (1837–1908)To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill number 10203, entitled "An Act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."

It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has, to some extent, already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional, to meet their remaining wants, will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of senators, representatives, and delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.


The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our senators and representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.


No one has the right to steal from another for any reason. You would do well to heed these sage words.

[fisharmor]

Constitutional? To ask the question is to answer it: there is nothing in the stated powers that allows for it.

As we are dealing with people who don't care about the constitutionality of their actions, I think the philosophical argument needs to be made.

After Katrina, government only stood in the way, mismanaged, obfuscated, frustrated, and oppressed. And this in an area where there was much less of this going on before the incident.

Haiti was not known as a nice place to live before the earthquake. There are reasons for this, and they all boil down to bad government. Saying that more, or other, or different government is going to take care of the problems caused by their government - well, we've all heard that two wrongs don't make a right.

The federal government has a lot of power to do real good down there, but absolutely no interest in doing it. For instance: how about a lifetime corporate tax nonliability for corporate cruise liners that send a ship down there to be used for a year?

What company isn't going to do that? The one that does do it - even if the ship gets trashed (it will) and is unusable afterward - will have a vast competitive advantage over other cruise liners. Therefore any company that doesn't do it is shooting itself in the foot.

But they'll never do that, even though it would be a greater help than any coerced help, because it cuts a feeding tube. These bureaucrats will never think outside of the box, they'll never consider freedom as a solution, they will only steal my money to put half-assed band-aids in place and only to look good politically, and therefore we know how much they really care.

Not at all.

[Krugerrand]

I agree to about 96 percent. We should have an idle military waiting around to defend our country. Some of those idle military resources could be made available for some assistance - primarily in facilitating the donations made by private US citizens.

For example ... the Navy could have a training exercise to transport private food donations.

[fisharmor]

I agree to about 96 percent. We should have an idle military waiting around to defend our country. Some of those idle military resources could be made available for some assistance - primarily in facilitating the donations made by private US citizens.

For example ... the Navy could have a training exercise to transport private food donations.

The entire point of having a 2 year budget for armed forces, coupled with the 2nd Amendment, is precisely to keep us from having an idle military waiting around.

How the hell do you think we got full steam into interventionism? We didn't reduce spending after WWII, kept all this stuff and all these soldiers waiting around, and it was only a matter of time before people started inventing reasons to use it.

It's simple economics.
Bratwurst and Sauerkraut weren't really German cuisine, until some salt-mine-owning prince decided everyone had to buy salt.
High fructose corn syrup wasn't in everything we eat until the government started telling everyone to grow corn.
Keep any good in great supply, and it will get used.
That includes military forces.

Your point about using military forces also doesn't address the concern that a government has still stolen my money to do this.

[Krugerrand]

The entire point of having a 2 year budget for armed forces, coupled with the 2nd Amendment, is precisely to keep us from having an idle military waiting around.

How the hell do you think we got full steam into interventionism? We didn't reduce spending after WWII, kept all this stuff and all these soldiers waiting around, and it was only a matter of time before people started inventing reasons to use it.

It's simple economics.
Bratwurst and Sauerkraut weren't really German cuisine, until some salt-mine-owning prince decided everyone had to buy salt.
High fructose corn syrup wasn't in everything we eat until the government started telling everyone to grow corn.
Keep any good in great supply, and it will get used.
That includes military forces.

Your point about using military forces also doesn't address the concern that a government has still stolen my money to do this.

One of the few justifiable purposes of government includes self defense. A military is either 1- in use, 2 - idle or 3 - non existent. I vote for 2.

I don't believe that Sauerkraut / Bratwurst story. Salt has been used a food preservative for a really long time ... long before German princes came about.

[Promontorium]

I find the idea of completely dissolving our military absurd.

If it exists in the context of defense, then standing around waiting should be the default position. You are talking about an offensive force, to only be called upon to kill.

Deterence is a good way to get nobody killed, like having an armed populace is a good way to deter criminals.

And the number 1 reason, training. What you don't want to have to reinvent the wheel in order to call up a military force. You need a constant population of highly trained individuals to keep up the knowledge gained, and to help advance and implement new technology.

Certainly though, I would promote a much much smaller military.