Relief Efforts
Part of the reason I love this blog space is the opportunity it gives to open the doors to government. Government works best when people are able to watch it and participate in the discussions. I welcome people challenging my thinking; it helps bring me back to where I'm supposed to be. And it allows people to better see where I am; they can agree with me, work to correct me, support me or throw me to the curb. It's their choice. In the end, through more transparency, the people will end up with representatives in touch with their desires.
The last post raised a spirited discussion on the role of the federal government that I want to bring to the main page. A commentor is ready to throw me to the curb, because I believe that the federal government does have the power to appropriate money to the Gulf Coast flood relief (just like the first post-Constitutional Congress appropriated money for a lighthouse in Chesapeake Bay, because it was good for the general welfare).
While the commentor believes such relief is outside the federal government's Constitutionally-enumerated powers, I cite Justice Rehnquist and Scalia (South Dakota v. Dole) for the point that "the constitutional limitations on Congress when exercising its spending power are less exacting than those on its authority to regulate directly." While I believe Congress routinely violates the Constitution by regulating outside its enumerated powers and by coercively regulating through overreaching mandates attached to spending provisions (e.g., No Child Left Behind), the spending power is broader. The key to controlling federal spending, therefore, is the ballot box.
If someone doesn't want to elect me because I'd support relief efforts in the Gulf Coast, so be it. Personally, I think we need better judgment and more restraint in other areas, so that the federal government will be better prepared to do the things it should. It can't do all things, and it makes a big mistake trying.
Regardless where you fall on this constitutional debate, I encourage all to support private relief efforts. Links to relief organizations are provided in the post below.
The last post raised a spirited discussion on the role of the federal government that I want to bring to the main page. A commentor is ready to throw me to the curb, because I believe that the federal government does have the power to appropriate money to the Gulf Coast flood relief (just like the first post-Constitutional Congress appropriated money for a lighthouse in Chesapeake Bay, because it was good for the general welfare).
While the commentor believes such relief is outside the federal government's Constitutionally-enumerated powers, I cite Justice Rehnquist and Scalia (South Dakota v. Dole) for the point that "the constitutional limitations on Congress when exercising its spending power are less exacting than those on its authority to regulate directly." While I believe Congress routinely violates the Constitution by regulating outside its enumerated powers and by coercively regulating through overreaching mandates attached to spending provisions (e.g., No Child Left Behind), the spending power is broader. The key to controlling federal spending, therefore, is the ballot box.
If someone doesn't want to elect me because I'd support relief efforts in the Gulf Coast, so be it. Personally, I think we need better judgment and more restraint in other areas, so that the federal government will be better prepared to do the things it should. It can't do all things, and it makes a big mistake trying.
Regardless where you fall on this constitutional debate, I encourage all to support private relief efforts. Links to relief organizations are provided in the post below.
posted by steve u. at 9/06/2005
Subscribe
12 Comments:
I enjoyed the discussion on the last blog. This is out our republic should work.
Great discussion! It is refreshing to get back to substantive discussions of core principles and away from political rhetoric. This is the kind of leader we need in office.
Hey, Dayton!
Thank you very much--I'll have to think about whether or not I want to run. Stay tuned... Oh, were you talking about Steve?
Mr. Urquhart, we differ on whether we should accept Supreme Court opinions as good public policy or not. Has the Supreme Court ever erred in its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution? I believe it has over and over again. To rely on flawed interpretation is legal, but not proper.
As stated in the Utah Constitution, “Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.”
Let’s start with fundamental principles. Can we agree that people form governments? People cannot give to government any powers that they as individuals do not possess. No individual has the right to force his neighbor to pay for interstate highways, regional dams, strategic levees or disaster relief. Therefore, no individual or group of individuals can give this power to anyone else, including to government. It doesn’t matter if it’s regulation or appropriation. Your reasoning, as well as that of Rehnquist and Scalia, goes against this fundamental principle. Forced charity strikes at the very heart of freedom.
Your other argument that the first Congress appropriated funds for a lighthouse only serves to demonstrate that the struggle to restrain government and maintain our rights and liberties dates back to the very beginnings of this great nation.
Patrick, are you saying that you think the federal government shouldn't have stepped in with helicopters and other aid because legally they weren't allowed to? It sounds like that, please clarify.
Maybe you're just arguing for arguments' sake, but I hope that the next time there is a disaster in our country the federal government will arrive sooner and in more company.
jr,
That is exactly what I am saying!
I am not arguing for the sake of argument. Please understand that I believe the U.S. Constitution is a divinely-inspired document and that our best opportunity for the pursuit of happiness and prosperity lies in following its precepts.
I would refer you to the following link concerning Colonel David (Davy) Crockett to let you know that I stand in good company:
http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/crockett.html
Please, please go to this site and read this account. Then we can discuss the merits of my position.
Oh, that we could have such statesmen as Colonel Crockett in the Congress today! This is the kind of person that I could fully support. Senator Orrin Hatch is not that person.
I hope that Mr. Urquhart will also read the account of Colonel Crockett and share his thoughts with us.
It was fun to read the Davy Crockett link. Just bear in mind that many historians find that much that was written about him, and especially much of what he said about himself, was enhanced to the point of being fiction. I think we can all find a fictitious character whose traits we would love to see in real life situations. But we need to deal with real life and the way things really are, not some pie-in-the-sky idea of utopia. If you can find some true-to-life Davy Crockett that would be a viable candidate for the U.S. Senate, go for it. Otherwise, stop regaling us with children's tales.
Just thought a time-line of events might help to clarify issues of concern.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline
I was wondering whether anyone would notice that John Roberts participated in the Dole case as an attorney.
The constitutional limitations on the spending powers exercised by congress are not as exacting for reasons such as these. I do not support the idea that the federal government should spend tax dollars on charity, there ought to be exceptions when we address relief measures as a national emergency and not just a regional one. The effects of Katrina will eventually be nationwide and without emergency aid from the government we could see greater national economic problems than if we were just to leave the matter to private organizations. I can understand your argument but I feel that the $10 million bill can be more of a worthy investment than a charitable donation.
That comment was for Patrick by the way. (Please excuse the error in my punctuation, I was on the run.)
I hope that Grover Cleveland will be better received than Davy Crockett was:
"I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the 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 prevailing 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."
— President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas [February 16, 1887]
There really is a better way!
<< Home