• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is "Sandy" a Federal Budget Issue?

The Supreme Court disagrees with you and that's the constitutional process we use to determine the constitutionality of laws. So you're not a strict constructionist; you're a crank whose crank theories are rejected by courts.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


NO INSURANCE, HOUSING, EDUCATION IS LISTED. IT HARD TO ARGUE AGAINST THE FOUNDING FATHERS IS IT NOT, WHEN YOU HAVE NOTING ...HEAD!
H

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Section. 8.

/snip
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
/snip

I would think under these two, we could find some funding to relieve the states. Not entirely, but I believe the ones above would repair the infrastructure that was damaged as they directly impact trade. Or am I giving them too much "flex"?
 
I would think under these two, we could find some funding to relieve the states. Not entirely, but I believe the ones above would repair the infrastructure that was damaged as they directly impact trade. Or am I giving them too much "flex"?

Too much. You are abusing the intent of the law. If people wanted the federal govt to pay for disaster recovery, all they have to do is pass an amendment. But they never do. THey wait for a crisis without preparing for it, and them run to the rich to pay for it, using the police powers of the federal govt.
 
Too much. You are abusing the intent of the law. If people wanted the federal govt to pay for disaster recovery, all they have to do is pass an amendment. But they never do. THey wait for a crisis without preparing for it, and them run to the rich to pay for it, using the police powers of the federal govt.

But our government has to maintain its infrastructure. That would also include preparing and repairing from major disasters.

I am not talking about homeowner relief on the shore or rebuilding boardwalks.
 
sure just look for the the u.s constitution is a search, and you will see it not on the list of enumerated duties of congress......they have only 18.... and insurance, education, housing is not part of that 18.
NO, you are supposed to show where in the Constitution what you claim is unconstitutional ....or show previous SC rulings that prove your point.

Amateur Constitutional scholars claiming a thing is what they say is always a hoot.

PS...the formation of FEMA...which is where this relief is originating from...was setup under Exec order.....further Congress has a long history of providing disaster relief, going back to the 7th Congress....so if in all that time you don't have a Constitutional challenge that applies....well bub...you probably don't have a case.
 
But our government has to maintain its infrastructure. That would also include preparing and repairing from major disasters.

I am not talking about homeowner relief on the shore or rebuilding boardwalks.

Infrastructure is not in the constitution other than post roads, and things directly related to other powers. So, power plants, ports, telephones are not within the powers of the constitution. And its not fair to just extend general welfare or national security to everything to get what you want. If we feel the govt needs to have some more lattitude to do something, pass an amendment expanding it.
 
NO, you are supposed to show where in the Constitution what you claim is unconstitutional ....or show previous SC rulings that prove your point.

Amateur Constitutional scholars claiming a thing is what they say is always a hoot.

PS...the formation of FEMA...which is where this relief is originating from...was setup under Exec order.....further Congress has a long history of providing disaster relief, going back to the 7th Congress....so if in all that time you don't have a Constitutional challenge that applies....well bub...you probably don't have a case.

No, that not how it works. The constitution is list of things the govt CAN do, or is specifically not allowed to do. And anything not in it, is not the power of the govt. So if you cant find disaster aid in it, its not allowed, according to the 9th and 10th amendments.
 
No, that not how it works. The constitution is list of things the govt CAN do, or is specifically not allowed to do. And anything not in it, is not the power of the govt. So if you cant find disaster aid in it, its not allowed, according to the 9th and 10th amendments.
Yes, that is how it works, you either show where federal disaster relief provided by Congress or the Executive is directly banned by the Constitution....or by Supreme Court decision. Otherwise, you are playing amateur Constitutional scholar without degree.
 
No, that not how it works. The constitution is list of things the govt CAN do, or is specifically not allowed to do. And anything not in it, is not the power of the govt. So if you cant find disaster aid in it, its not allowed, according to the 9th and 10th amendments.

Even the most strict constitutionalists tend to agree that federal disaster aid counts as promoting the general welfare, thus it does appear to work that way.
 
Infrastructure is not in the constitution other than post roads, and things directly related to other powers. So, power plants, ports, telephones are not within the powers of the constitution. And its not fair to just extend general welfare or national security to everything to get what you want. If we feel the govt needs to have some more lattitude to do something, pass an amendment expanding it.
LOL...the interstate highway system funding......IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

LOL...good luck with that one.

Don't you have anything better to argue about?

Further, as always, if you and "ernst" are such Constitutional fundamentalists and can see that from the start (at least from the 7th Congress which included a few "framers) that the govt has not followed your view of the Constitution....then the door is ALWAYS open for you to leave and start your own state. I read that a number of gazillionaires are doing exactly that with their own floating city....might be something to consider.

And please, don't come back with "but we want to go back to the way it was"...it never was like you imagine and the rest of us do not agree with your extremism.
 
NO, you are supposed to show where in the Constitution what you claim is unconstitutional ....or show previous SC rulings that prove your point.

Amateur Constitutional scholars claiming a thing is what they say is always a hoot.

PS...the formation of FEMA...which is where this relief is originating from...was setup under Exec order.....further Congress has a long history of providing disaster relief, going back to the 7th Congress....so if in all that time you don't have a Constitutional challenge that applies....well bub...you probably don't have a case.

the constitution limits power of the federal government...it does not EXPAND IT, unless an amendment is created. it says simply, these are what congress can do and no more, it does not give congress the power to redistribute money from one citizen to another or one entity to another, and bulid the federal government bigger, government was created to be small and limited, and play only a small role in our lifes.
 
LOL...the interstate highway system funding......IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

LOL...good luck with that one.

Don't you have anything better to argue about?

Further, as always, if you and "ernst" are such Constitutional fundamentalists and can see that from the start (at least from the 7th Congress which included a few "framers) that the govt has not followed your view of the Constitution....then the door is ALWAYS open for you to leave and start your own state. I read that a number of gazillionaires are doing exactly that with their own floating city....might be something to consider.

And please, don't come back with "but we want to go back to the way it was"...it never was like you imagine and the rest of us do not agree with your extremism.

I can tell you arent really interested in a civil discussion, so Ill just ignore you from now on.
 
Back
Top Bottom