Posted on 02/23/2008 10:28:33 PM PST by Tahts-a-dats-ago
As is often the case when considering proposals pushed by our lawmakers, many among us have resigned themselves to asking the wrong questions. Instead of pontificating the so-called merits of an 845 billion dollar expenditure, we should be asking ourselves: what have we wrought?
Despite the efforts, of many, to muddy the waters, the Constitution is relatively clear as to its intent with regards to the powers granted within. On those questions in which intent appears somewhat difficult to discern, we must as instructed by the framers themselves turn our attention to the thoughts expressed by the people making the law (and those ratifying the law in question). It is through such research that we can obtain the reasons specified for the passage, or consideration, of the potential law.
While there is a great deal of evidence that the framers often disagreed as to the best manner for governing the newly formed nation, there is no viable evidence in support of actions such as the one being discussed. Nor do we find supporting evidence in the often heated discussions which took place during the ratification of our Constitution; in fact we find evidence to the contrary, with members vehemently opposed to the concept of redistributing wealth from one group to another. Such ideas were thought to run counter to the basic tenet of freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at helium.com ...
Please visit link for the rest of the article.
Your comments on the article are welcome: I'd like to know what people think of my articles.
We don’t want it, but I’m sure it will pass anyway.
Overwhelmingly
Global Poverty Act??? We are cutting Medicare to the point where our seniors cannot get health care and now our dollars are going global. Wake up!!! Fight back! This has gone beyond rational! Taxation without representation.
Holy cow!
Even George W. Bush would never propose anything like that.
No!
Great Society II
This makes the “Great Society” seem like a farm bill. This, among many items on the socialist agenda, will be the end of the US as we know it.
Maybe we just aren’t going to ever pay China and all the other countries back that we are borrowing money from to fight global poverty. Then, what do we do when they stop lending us money to fight global poverty because they know our credit isn’t any good?
This doesn’t go far enough...we should put 1.7 Trillion in the budget to stop world poverty!
Senate should approve Obama’s expulsion!
845 billion dollars could buy 704 B-2 bombers. We only have 20 of them and sure could use some more if we ever have to knock out a nation’s defenses that is heavily defended, such as Iran for example.
With that many B-2s, we wouldn’t have to worry about how many countries don’t like us or think we’re a bunch of meanies. They’d be too afraid of us.
Quote from the article:
In fact if we search the Constitution, there is no granted power which allows Congress the ability to take your tax dollars and submit them to the will of a foreign body. Such subversion is not only an example of extremely poor governance: it’s a violation of Constitutional law.
So is Bush in Violation too? Every President is in violation as well?
Yes and yes.
Sure hope we don’t ever discover life on other planets. We might not be able to afford to take care of them and prove to them how generous we are.
i voted to bankrupt myself to pay for baby boomers?
when EXACTLY did I do THAT? huh?
OK, assuming that’s the case, who is going to stand up in Congress and make that claim and still manage to avoid being put into straight jacket?
No, I think 3.4 trillion would end global poverty, and make everybody we give it to even less poor.
If we only gave 1.7 trillion, then some people would still have less than others, and THEY would end up being poorer than the people we gave the 1.7 trillion to, and then we’d have to end THEIR poverty ....
I’m against anything with faulty assumptions. This bill and this ethic assumes that we cause global poverty. It assumes that global socialism and global leftism and global tyranny and global kleptocracy are innocent bystanders in this dynamic. This bill is hosed!!!!
This post (<-click), while addressing a tax-related thread, explains in more detail why misguided dreamers like Obama are foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics and are therefore in contempt of the Constitution.
The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to the MAJOR problem of a federal government that is not operating within the restraints of the federal Constitution, a consequence of FDR's dirty politics. Bluntly put, the people need to quit sitting on their hands and send big-shot, constitution-ignoring federal spenders like Obama and Clinton home instead of trying to put people like them in the Oval Office.
What I really don’t get is how they don’t see that lifting more people in the world up to our standards of living is going to greatly increase the amount of natural resources being used, increase pollution into the air, water, and soil and lead to even far more climate change based on their own theory that man is causing climate change. What do they think is going to happen when there are that many more people driving cars, taking trips on airplanes, and consuming far more energy than they do while less advanced?
So, we’re going to give less advanced nations more money so they can consume more and pollute more? How will we combat climate change then? While trying to make us in the advanced world go back, they are trying to make the primitive people advance. It doesn’t make sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.