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.

[sheltonmac]

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

Really? Private charity is one thing, but your statement suggests something else entirely. Would you say that we have a "moral obligation" to forcibly confiscate the earnings of American citizens to fund global welfare programs? Do we have a "moral obligation" to order young American men and women (who have sworn an oath only to defend against enemies of the U.S.) to their deaths for the sake of foreigners (e.g., Somalia)?

[chance33_98]

I understand what you're saying, and don't necessarily agree with such usage of funds. My point was more along the lines of interpretation (the constitution is like the bible, many groups see many different things it and they all think they are right - the leaders of the church interpret, and in the US the supreme court does so).

Example: 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;

Those wishing to do so could say that using money for such things already mentioned contribute to the general welfare of the US and make a case as to why. For example, spreading freedom they could say in the long run relates to the general welfare as it decreases the threats to the US by countries which are run by a dictator who hates. Etc and so on.

In a place where there are a melting pot of ideas and interpretations of what something means such vague items can be seen as fitting into various ideas. We might see them as wrong, and this is where discussions on the merits of ideas and how they impact us help define our direction.

One could say that gay marriage does not benefit the general welfare, and hence taxing you and I more so that they can have a tax break is, for secular reasons alone, a bad idea.

At any rate, thanks for civil and intelligent discourse. Such threads are mentally stimulating to say the least.

[sheltonmac]

See my post #21. You are confusing private charity with government-mandated (i.e., forced) welfare. BIG difference. You seem to be suggesting that I would be taking the "teachings of the Bible to heart" if I forced you to share some of your wealth with a needy neighbor.

[JimRed]

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

You nailed it, RWP.

[Right Wing Professor]

He said we -- i.e. America - not the American government.

[Right Wing Professor]

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

You may well be right, but there's nothing in the remarks that indicates that.

[chance33_98]

See my post 22

[sheltonmac]

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

Harsh, but it definitely gets the point across. It all boils down to which is valued more: safety or liberty. Thankfully, our forefathers chose the latter.

[sheltonmac]

A gross misinterpretation. The "General Welfare" clause is not a license for the government to go above and beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution. While the Preamble notes that government should provide for the "General Welfare," the rest of the Constitution proceeds to list those specific powers the federal government is authorized to use to accomplish that goal.

[chance33_98]

You interpret it one way. I do another. And many other groups have their own view. The question is not just a matter of who is right - the question is, who decides which one is right?

We can argue all day, and it will accomplish nothing. If you think such things are wrong, file a lawsuit to stop them on constitutional grounds. You may win. You may not. But if you want to go by the entire constitution then you will also accept the supreme court's role in deciding such issues. If you disagree with them, try again.

[sheltonmac]

He said we -- i.e. America - not the American government.

Really? I guess I missed the part where he called for the end of federal funds used to fight AIDS and hunger in foreign nations and called upon Americans to pick up the slack with private donations.

Sorry. The globalist meant the American government.

[u-89]

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

[dead]

What's your take on this?

In many many ways, Bush is a liberal.

But he kills terrorists dead, so I’ll vote for him again.

[ApplegateRanch]

There is a moral obligation; not a legal one, to help peoples around the world...IF it does not harm America or Americans.

However, there is also a legal AND moral obligation to not aid our overt enemies.

"Humanitarian" aid to such as DPRK, directly benefits the regime and its armed forces. Not by theft, or by redirection, but by the simple fact that it makes food and medicine available which otherwise would not have been, giving no NET gain to the populace.
It allows the regime to keep its army & internal police well fed, armed, and medicated, while freeing resources to fund arms.

"Humanitarian" aid is always regime aid.
Two other examples being the UN Oil-For-Food scheme (and I do mean 'scheme' in every unsavory connotation) or the 'humanitarian aid' to Mr. Aristede.

A final case in point is both UN & EU "humanitarian" aid to the PA. Unless lining Yassir/Nossir's pockets; and providing terrorists with weapons to kill Israelis is somehow helping the Palestinian child on the street, it is just another scam.

[sheltonmac]

You interpret it one way. I do another.

Yes, and your way happens to be wrong. Forget the tyrannical Supreme Court. I have the actual framers of the Constitution themselves to back me on this one:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.

- James Madison, Federalist No.

The concerns many of the anti-federalists had was that the term "general welfare" could be twisted to mean that the government would essentially have unlimited power (as you seemingly believe it does). Madison dismissed that notion by pointing out that the government is clearly limited to the specific powers listed in the Constitution.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Robin Hood was a guerrilla leader in an ethnic war.

Mr. Bush seems way too much like the socialist dems for my taste.

[CDHart]

I have to say that under our Constitution, we have no such obligations. We have no Constitutional obligation to redistribute wealth, either, although we do it every day. That said, I can tell you I was favorably impressed with Bush's answers and I think he's sincere and truly believes that we should help the rest of the world.

Carolyn

[KC Burke]

I consider myself a conservative.

I felt that Bush's remarks were made in answer to media framing the week along the lines of "should we withdraw" and "what are we doing there since we got rid of Saddam's rule". In other words, do we have a bigger role beyond knocking out our enemy's regime? The answer is yes by the rules of war and commonsense.

Our nation's founder's framed us as 'a new order for the ages' and thought that this sentiment extended to mankind, not just where our government could or should reach. We felt we had discovered Principles.

Bush is not proposing legislation, he is framing our character and calling on the better angels of our nature that he promised to invoke in his inaugural.

[cspackler]

Oh great, another vote waster. You people never cease to amaze me.

[kcar]

A libertarian-Republican. We have no obligation to anyone but ourselves. Our government is under obligation to protect the life and liberty of its citizens, and no other. At times this could be enhanced by alliances, but then the purpose of that is to more efficiently aid each other against common threats.

We have no obligation to feed the hungry and stop Aids in Africa, or to fight for freedom everywhere. President Bush I like and respect, but don't start waxing grande on my wallet - you'll fall down (or I will).

[u-89]

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

[JFC]

well you will get what you deserve when you vote for kerry.

God help us all if kerry were to win.

[biblewonk]

I'm MCTT, more conservative than thou.

I think what he said is true.

[newgeezer]

This President takes the teachings of the Bible to heart.

For some reason, W wants to give some of Abraham's land to the so-called Palestinians.

Maybe he's one of those RLO (Red Letter Only) readers? ;O)

[Liz]

This is a view that is often debated among the conservative intelligentsia. It's the concept of America as "empire;" that we, as a Nation, have much to give, and therefore, we must use our power to strew the world with the blessings of democracy. The pro-Empire view is common among neocons.

[kidd]

Now I'm mad as all heck!

You've excerpted your own vanity post.

[u-89]

>I'm MCTT, more conservative than thou.

>I think what he said is true.

What do you think I am in a political sense? And as a self described conservative do you think the government is obligated to provide welfare domestically and globally? If so how do you square that with the constitution and the writings of the founders? Just curious.

cordially,

[justshutupandtakeit]

Many deeper thinkers understand that National Security is not limited to military spending or intelligence gathering. Our national security has been compromised by the existence of terror sponsoring states. Epidemics can be a National Security threat as well. Poor nations lead to political instability and can threat our national interests. Our nation benefits from having wealthy, productive wealthy nations in the world. Nor is there any doubt that many of the factors Bush mentioned also impact our National Security. Interconnections with the rest of the world are not easy to avoid and cannot be escaped. The days of month long voyages to make contact are long gone.

How these "obligations" are fulfilled is crucial.

I am sure the Bubble Boys will soon arrive with their misinterpretations of current affairs, history and constitutional law.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I call myself a Nationalist Patriot.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The principal difference is that National Security can be secured by many methods and can be affected by many types of threats. It is not just bombs and bullets which can hurt us.