Unofficial FR Poll - Your Opinion on Bush's Remarks & the Constitution

FR ^ | 14 April 04 | me

[u-89]

Unofficial FR poll (just because I'm curious):

- What do you think of the following statement by President Bush at his press conference last night - agree or disagree?

- How do you describe yourself politically - socialist/liberal, moderate, nominal Republican, staunch Republican (issues be damned as long as they have a "R" by their name), neoconservative, conservative, constitutionalist, libertarian?

- and finally - does the following square with your understanding of the government's mission as laid out by the founding father's and authorized by the constitution?

From President Bush's press conference:

"And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who starve.

"We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned.

"And my job as the president is to lead this nation and to making the world a better place. And that's exactly what we're doing."

[u-89]

The link is to the transcript of the press conference.

[u-89]

What's your take on this? Ping your friends.

[Right Wing Professor]

The obligation could be a moral obligation, and if so, there's no problem.

[Americathy]

Always a tough one, and obviously we can't do it all. But if we are a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian values, the obligation to help our neighbor is very clear. The Good Samaritan story isn't a story urging welfare (as it has often been used), but is a story about helping those in need. When Jesus was asked who is our neighbor he returned with the Good Samaritan parable, a story of someone who had been abused by thugs - could have been an Iraqi freshly pounded by Saddam in that story.

[chance33_98]

obligation

We do have certain moral obligations to help others, etc. I didn't see him saying we should make a law requiring we do so. I also noticed he did not include everything under the sun, Each and every president/administration feels it has certain obligations in different areas based upon their beliefs. To temper such things it requires approval from congress when spending money, etc.

[ladyinred]

This President takes the teachings of the Bible to heart. Feeding the hungry, helping those who are sick, etc. To whom much is given, much is required.

[GraniteStateConservative]

We're all Wilsonians now. Didn't you get the memo?

[GraniteStateConservative]

He's talking about government action. He's not preaching a sermon on loving your neighbor.

[GraniteStateConservative]

"We have [a governmental] obligation to help feed the hungry." -- George W. Bush, 2004

"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds . . . I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." -- Grover Cleveland, 1887 after he vetoed an appropriation to help drought-stricken, hungry Texans

[fod]

The answer depends on if the obligation is voluntary or mandatory.

If voluntary, it is rather commendable and and typifies an excellent example of leadership.

If, on the other hand it is made mandatory and backed by the force of law, it is no more than socialist money redistribution.

But then again most Americans think of the Robin Hood type ethics as rather romantic these days, but the fact remains that Hr. Hood was still a thief, no matter how noble his intents...

[chance33_98]

I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution

So he did as he felt proper. If there is no appropriation for it, then let the supreme court interpret it as such and strike it down, or the congress can step in. You are free to file a lawsuit which challenges the distribution of such funds.

[billbears]

This President takes the teachings of the Bible to heart. Feeding the hungry, helping those who are sick, etc. To whom much is given, much is required.

Which are personal or at most community issues. If an individual wants to provide every last dime they have on foreign aid there is no problem. Heck, I would even commend that individual as doing what Christ commanded us all to do. But it is not the national government's obligation, nor right per the Constitution, to do so. One could, and liberals often do, use the same argument for government handouts domestically. That we're supposed to care for the sick with healthcare entitlements, that it's our duty to provide Social Security to the elderly.

This argument for US intervention worldwide is no different to that of a liberal's concerning domestic policies. Wilsonian views on the world are not necessarily Christian, Constitutional, or conservative

[GraniteStateConservative]

Until FDR, this country thought such obligations were imaginary. The SCOTUS has blindly followed along.

[u-89]

What's your take on this? Ping your friends.

[sheltonmac]

Totally, completely unconstitutional. Bush allowed his true globalist colors to show last night.

[Sloth]

I am nominally a Republican (registered that way) and voted for Bush in 2000, but I'm ideologically a small-'l' libertarian and I don't plan to vote for Bush again.

As far as his statements about our "obligations", I'm not bothered by them. Since (thankfully) there is no such thing as real 'international law', the countries of the world are akin to neighbors living in the Wild West with no lawmen.

If you know your neighbor is raping his children, you have every moral right and duty to go put a stop to it, either by yourself or in concert with other like-minded neighbors. If you perceive somebody to constitute an unprovoked threat to your family -- or that of your friends -- then you have every right to take care of the situation. Those are the kinds of obligations he's talking about.

I see Bush's foreign policy as still based soundly on the Constitutional principle of national defense & protection of American interests -- he's just being proactive rather than reactive.

[Tennessean4Bush]

There is no constitutional obligation. Bush was obviously appealing on a moral basis - which upon any initiation of a debate will involve a casuistry. It will never be resolved to most people's satisfaction. However, on of the jobs of President is to lead and that includes (for sure) morality.

[xzins]

Obligation to whom?

God....I'd agree. We state in the Declaration that we are endowed by our Creator with rights.

Therefore, to oppose the spread of freedom would be to stand in opposition to God. That's not a stance I want to take anytime soon.

Likewise, to advance the spread of freedom would be to work for the same thing as God desires. That would be a work that I would be wise to support.

[dalereed]

If Bush uses his own funds I don't care!

If he's talking about tax money (or printed fiat money), forget it!

It's up to the citizens of those countries to change their government, develop a work incentive, and personally strive to improve their lifestyles.

If they are unwilling to do that they can lay down in the street and die as far as im concerned.

[Sloth]

Addendum: My prior answer was more aimed at the idea of "spreading freedom." I still say that feeding the hungry is a moral obligation, but I'd say it is one upon the people of the U.S., not the government (except perhaps in an emergency scenario). The Constitution is aimed at protection, not charity.