Chris Christie: Rand Paul ‘dangerous’

[jdmack79]

Things would be a lot better if the Libertarians could put up a candidate that could get elected. (Oh, yeah, I went there. )

Things would be a lot better if the Republicans could put up a presidential candidate that could get elected. (Oh, yeah, I went there. )

 

[jdmack79]

I will give Christie one thing, though. I was living in NJ when Sandy hit, and our state was nothing short of a disaster afterwards. He put his foot down and did the best he could to help the state. He did not care about being bashed by his own party because he was appreciative of Obama's visit and pledge to get the funds he needed. Now that is someone anyone can appreciate in a politician, putting your constituents before your party. I was absolutely disgusted when GOP senators voted against funding the aid relief and then begged for it themselves when the tornadoes hit. Shameful on all levels.

Why should I, as a taxpayer, fund storm repairs in NJ?

 

[sun]

Why should I, as a taxpayer, fund storm repairs in NJ?

Because in our Republic we live and abide by the rules of our Representative Democracy and our Congress voted for it.
I guess that when it comes to U.S. politics, it's love it or leave it.
People are free to vote with their feet and to go live somewhere else, or bite the bullet until there's another election and see if anything changes.
But don't expect much of anything to change when it comes to funding relief for natural disasters.
What were the folks who were against funding the wars against terror suppose to do, complain about it?
All taxpayers funded the bullets and bombs whether they supported the wars or not.
That's how a Representative Democracy works, a citizen is either on the winning side or losing side.
And spending the money that is collected in taxes is what the business of government is all about.
Once the government collects the tax money, the laws dictate the decision making process by which they can legally spend it. And the majority that votes "Aye" rules.

 

[MisterChester]

Excellent post, sun.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Because in our Republic we live and abide by the rules of our Representative Democracy and our Congress voted for it.

Absolutely wrong! We live in a constitutional republic in which the federal government is authorized to do only those thing listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. You may also wish to review the fact that a democracy is essentially organized mob rule devoid of any set rule of law.

Section 8

1: 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;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: 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;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: 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;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession 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
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powersvested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I need some help here. I can't find a word about storm relief or any other form of personal assistance in the government's constitutionally delegated powers.

I guess that when it comes to U.S. politics, it's love it or leave it.

Again, dead wrong. The Constitution is a binding contract between the government and the governed, frequent and routine violation threof notwithstanding. I am not compelled to leave because of the worthless c********rs in Washington violating the law.

People are free to vote with their feet and to go live somewhere else, or bite the bullet until there's another election and see if anything changes.
But don't expect much of anything to change when it comes to funding relief for natural disasters.
What were the folks who were against funding the wars against terror suppose to do, complain about it?
All taxpayers funded the bullets and bombs whether they supported the wars or not.
That's how a Representative Democracy works, a citizen is either on the winning side or losing side.
And spending the money that is collected in taxes is what the business of government is all about.
Once the government collects the tax money, the laws dictate the decision making process by which they can legally spend it. And the majority that votes "Aye" rules.

Are you a graduate of the Obama school of civics? After all, while he certainly did not invent the concept, he has been the first president brazen enough to publicly put forward the notion that the proper pattern of governance is tyranny by 51% vote, which is exactly what you are advocating. I recommend that you learn the difference between a republic and a democracy, or in other terms, the difference between limited and unlimited government. If you can manage that much, then you may want to consider making violation of the Constitution your primary issue rather than having a problem with it only when actions are taken which conflict with your personal opinion of right and proper. There are plenty of things I would consider a good idea but would not want the federal government doing because it lacks the constitutional authority to do so and I am not willing to selectively approve government gone wild.

.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Excellent post, sun.

Excellent post for people who don't believe in following the Constitution.

If I weren't in such a good mood, I would probably find his post worthy of negative rep.

 

[MisterChester]

Excellent post for people who don't believe in following the Constitution.

If I weren't in such a good mood, I would probably find his post worthy of negative rep.

....what? According to your logic, the Air Force is an unconstitutional group because they aren't mentioned in the Constitution. And if you use the "it's for the common defense" argument, then disaster relief falls under "general welfare of the United States". So, what is it then?

 

[lucky4034]

.

Excellent post sun

 

[Meezer]

Excellent post for people who don't believe in following the Constitution.

If I weren't in such a good mood, I would probably find his post worthy of negative rep.

Once again an excellent post IndyDave1776

 

[IndyDave1776]

....what? According to your logic, the Air Force is an unconstitutional group because they aren't mentioned in the Constitution. And if you use the "it's for the common defense" argument, then disaster relief falls under "general welfare of the United States". So, what is it then?

National defense argument is perfectly valid. General welfare is the maintaining circumstances conducive to the well-being of the nation and the people, not the specific welfare of any individual or group. The general welfare clause is one of the most abused and deliberately misinterpreted parts of the Constitution. Thanks for providing an opportunity to address this travesty of ignorance.

 

[MisterChester]

National defense argument is perfectly valid. General welfare is the maintaining circumstances conducive to the well-being of the nation and the people, not the specific welfare of any individual or group. The general welfare clause is one of the most abused and deliberately misinterpreted parts of the Constitution. Thanks for providing an opportunity to address this travesty of ignorance.

Don't you think the well being of every part of the country contributes to the well being of the nation? Because what I make out of your argument is that in order for disaster relief to be constitutional, every single person in the country must be affected in some way.

Lets say your home and your hometown are destroyed by a terrible EF-5 tornado. Are you telling me you will refuse federal money, being sent to help the town's and your well being? Are you going to stand on your property and yell relief is unconstitutional?

 

[Meezer]

Don't you think the well being of every part of the country contributes to the well being of the nation? Because what I make out of your argument is that in order for disaster relief to be constitutional, every single person in the country must be affected in some way.

Lets say your home and your hometown are destroyed by a terrible EF-5 tornado. Are you telling me you will refuse federal money, being sent to help the town's and your well being? Are you going to stand on your property and yell relief is unconstitutional?

President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: “Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled ‘An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,’ and which sets apart and pledges funds ‘for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,’ I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.”

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, “The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”


Madison said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

Madison added, “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.”

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”


President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, “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.”

 

[IndyDave1776]

Don't you think the well being of every part of the country contributes to the well being of the nation? Because what I make out of your argument is that in order for disaster relief to be constitutional, every single person in the country must be affected in some way.

Lets say your home and your hometown are destroyed by a terrible EF-5 tornado. Are you telling me you will refuse federal money, being sent to help the town's and your well being? Are you going to stand on your property and yell relief is unconstitutional?

You did a fine job of completely missing the point. The 'general welfare' clause is a reference to the creation of an environment conducive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not a mandate nor a permission for the federal government to become involved in any specific act of redistribution.

As for your storm example, this is a fine example of how the federal extortion game works. After a lifetime of having money taxed out of them for unconstitutional spending that could have been set back for such eventualities or else invested in proper insurance, few people can afford to turn down a .gov largess of misappropriated tax money. Thank you for pointing out a wonderful example of how we are extorted with our own money.

 

[IndyDave1776]

President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: “Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled ‘An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,’ and which sets apart and pledges funds ‘for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,’ I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.”

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, “The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”


Madison said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

Madison added, “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.”

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”


President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, “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.”

 

[MisterChester]

You did a fine job of completely missing the point. The 'general welfare' clause is a reference to the creation of an environment conducive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not a mandate nor a permission for the federal government to become involved in any specific act of redistribution.

As for your storm example, this is a fine example of how the federal extortion game works. After a lifetime of having money taxed out of them for unconstitutional spending that could have been set back for such eventualities or else invested in proper insurance, few people can afford to turn down a .gov largess of misappropriated tax money. Thank you for pointing out a wonderful example of how we are extorted with our own money.

Just answer the questions. Does the well being of the individuals and the states contribute to the well being of the nation? Are you personally going to refuse the relief money, knowing that some of the money you have paid into taxes are part of that fund?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just answer the questions. Does the well being of the individuals and the states contribute to the well being of the nation? Are you personally going to refuse the relief money, knowing that some of the money you have paid into taxes are part of that fund?

1. Once again individual well-being doesn't have a thing to do with the general welfare clause. Just because it has been twisted into something that it is not and was never intended to be since FDR packed the courts, that does not change the fact that this is an upside-down tail wagging the dog argument. If it is not in Article I Section 8, the federal government should NOT be doing it. Period.

2. I should hope that the worthless MFSBs in the government would have failed at picking my pocket to such an extent as to force dependency such that I could tell them to to go bugger themselves on fenceposts.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Meezer and Indydave.

I had not seen those particular quotes from Madison and Pierce before. I had seen the one from Cleveland though--was that related to dust bowl relief? It is amazing to see how far we've strayed from our original mission. It's also interesting to note how soon after our founding, there were those intent on "big government" type spending. I can imagine the howls of outrage if some president vetoed modern bills with those arguments.

 

[jamil]

Just answer the questions. Does the well being of the individuals and the states contribute to the well being of the nation? Are you personally going to refuse the relief money, knowing that some of the money you have paid into taxes are part of that fund?

Your argument seems to be, "what feels right is more important than what the law says." That sentiment would make us a nation of people, at the whim of 50% +1.

We are a nation of laws. Don't like it? Well there's a process codified that describes how to change it. So follow it rather than inventing phony interpretations of existing law to justify your whims.

 

[sun]

1: 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;

It seems pretty clear that when the general welfare of state(s) which are part and parcel to the United States is affected that the Congress has the power to help restore it.
Of course if a President wants to risk vetoing the appropriation then they can risk ruining their popularity by being overturned and appearing to be too frugal in the face of a real need.
There will always be earthquakes and other natural disasters and needs from A-Z.
If we can fund the rebuilding of Iraq, and send foreign aid to every country from here to Timbuktu, then why can't the Congress legally aid our own states when they're sinking in red ink from a natural disaster? That's why we have FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency - http://www.fema.gov/ ) In essence the aid is nothing more than a form of a tax rebate which we all know how certain politicians have handed out rebate checks and tax breaks, especially during a time of war when the bullets and bombs and rebuilding of Iraq weren't even being paid for through the general revenues because the revenues were inadequate. But after all, the general welfare of the nation's economy was at stake and folks needed their stimulus checks and tax breaks.
So if natural disaster relief isn't part of the General Welfare, then why doesn't anyone have the coconuts to take it up to the SCOTUS and have it ruled on? Because it would be such a far reaching folly to even try, that's why.
The SCOTUS doesn't try to overule such political questions, in other words appropriations that are in the realm of politics and within the Constitutional rights of the Congress to rightfully decide. After all, they were all rightfully elected to do their duty and protect the general welfare of the United States, even if that includes the New Jersey coastline and all of the commerce that's part of it. That's the business of the Federal Government, to step up to the plate when the need arises.
That's why the Federal Government is paying to keep New Orleans from flooding when it gets hit by another hurricane, and why it's restoring the Everglades waterways in Florida.

In 2000, a plan to restore the Everglades was approved by Congress; to date, it is the most expensive and comprehensive environmental repair attempt in history.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everglades

 

[jamil]

It seems pretty clear that when the general welfare of state(s) which are part and parcel to the United States is affected that the Congress has the power to help restore it.

I think this is a clear example of a phony interpretations to justify a whim.

Of course if a President wants to risk vetoing the appropriation then they can risk ruining their popularity by being overturned and appearing to be too frugal in the face of a real need.

Well shame works so well in the pop culture of high school, why not apply it universally? After all, popularity beats political courage every time.

There will always be earthquakes and other natural disasters and needs from A-Z.
If we can fund the rebuilding of Iraq, and send foreign aid to every country from here to Timbuktu, then why can't the Congress legally aid our own states when they're sinking in red ink from a natural disaster? That's why we have FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency - FEMA.gov | Federal Emergency Management Agency ) In essence the aid is nothing more than a form of a tax rebate which we all know how certain politicians have handed out rebate checks and tax breaks, especially during a time of war when the bullets and bombs and rebuilding of Iraq wasn't even being paid for through the general revenues because the revenues were inadequate. But after all, the general welfare of the nation's economy was at stake and folks needed their stimulus checks and tax breaks.

So if natural disaster relief isn't part of the General Welfare, then why doesn't anyone have the coconuts to take it up to the SCOTUS and have it ruled on? Because it would be such a far reaching folly to even try, that's why.

First, funding the destruction of Iraq, let alone the rebuilding of it was an unconstitutional expenditure. Sending foreign aid to every country from here to Timbuktu is unconstitutional. No one here arguing against disaster aid is saying that any of those things are legal. Why do we have FEMA? I dunno, why do we have NDAA? Why do we have the PATRIOT act? Why do we have a militarized police force? Why is our government watching EVERYONE?

I'll tell you why we have all that ****. Because people who believe that (50% + 1) should rule the remaining (50% - 1) vote for politicians who also believe in 50% + 1 rule, and they "make" what they want to do "popular" rather than constitutional. THATs why.

The SCOTUS doesn't try to overule such political questions, in other words appropriations that are in the realm of politics and within the Constitutional rights of the Congress to rightfully decide. After all, they were all rightfully elected to do their duty and protect the general welfare of the United States, even if that includes the New Jersey coastline and all of the commerce that's part of it. That's the business of the Federal Government, to step up to the plate when the need arises.
That's why the Federal Government is paying to keep New Orleans from flooding when it gets hit by another hurricane, and why it's restoring the Everglades waterways in Florida.

"General Welfare" isn't unlimited. "General Welfare" doesn't mean "charity". If "General Welfare" meant FEMA, FEMA would have been among the enumerated powers.

In times of disaster, do you demand that other people you don't even know pay for your loss? Or do you *request* help?