The Constitutional question is a close call, I think. I just did some quick Google research on the history of Federal disaster relief bills, and it appears that the first one was passed in 1803, to provide relief to Portsmouth, NH following a massive fire. Certainly an argument can be made that if Congress in 1803 (which, I believe, included at least a few people who signed the Constitution) thought that such a bill was Constitutional (perhaps because it was "necessary and proper" to help rebuild Portsmouth in order to carry out some other power of the Federal government) implies that similar bills today are likewise Constitutional.
The thing people often forget about the Constitution is that it was the product of significant compromises between opposing factions, and that even at the time it was ratified, there was significant debate as to what the powers Federal government did and did not have. Look at McCulloch v. Maryland and the debate over the creation of a national bank, for just one example.
After doing some scratching, there appear to be major constitutional differences between places like Portsmouth, Maine, and New York versus Moore, Oklahoma where federal versus state jurisdictions are concerned, differences which would likely have constitutionally justified the Relief Act of 1803 for Portsmouth imo, as opposed to Moore. From Wikipedia, please consider the following.
Prior to 1930sA series of devastating fires struck the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, early in the 19th century. The 7th U.S. Congress passed a measure in 1803 that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants by extending the time they had for remitting tariffs on imported goods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster.
Between 1803 and 1930, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times for relief or compensation after a disaster. Examples include the waiving of duties and tariffs to the merchants of New York City after the Great Fire of New York (1835). After President Abraham Lincoln's assassination at John T. Ford's Theatre, the 54th Congress passed legislation compensating those who were injured in the theater. --Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wikipedia
First, and I stand to be possibly corrected on this assertion, but note that the "relief" that Congress provided in these cities was evidently tax relief on deadlines for tariffs on imported goods, as opposed to providing food and shelter for victims of natural or manmade disasters.
As a side note, I'm going to call the relief that Congress provided for people injured in the theater where Lincoln was assinated as constitutionally unjustifiable, although not surprising with respect to that period.
Getting back to Portsmouth, given the tax relief that Congress provided, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Clause 18 of Section 8, may not have been the constitutional justification for the Relief Act. This is because Clause 17 of that section gives Congress jurisdiction over dock-yards which both Portsmouth and New York have, the previously mentioned relief on deadlines for taxes unsurprisingly being for federal taxes.
As I mentioned in previous post, I think that it would be great if feds provided relief for natural disasters like the one in Moore, Oklahoma. But let's work within the framework of the Constitution for such relief by properly amending the Constitution to grant Congress the specific power to tax and spend for such a purpose.
After doing some scratching, there appear to be major constitutional differences between places like Portsmouth, Maine, and New York versus Moore, Oklahoma where federal versus state jurisdictions are concerned, differences which would likely have constitutionally justified the Relief Act of 1803 for Portsmouth imo, as opposed to Moore. From Wikipedia, please consider the following.
Prior to 1930sA series of devastating fires struck the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, early in the 19th century. The 7th U.S. Congress passed a measure in 1803 that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants by extending the time they had for remitting tariffs on imported goods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster.
Between 1803 and 1930, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times for relief or compensation after a disaster. Examples include the waiving of duties and tariffs to the merchants of New York City after the Great Fire of New York (1835). After President Abraham Lincoln's assassination at John T. Ford's Theatre, the 54th Congress passed legislation compensating those who were injured in the theater. --Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wikipedia
First, and I stand to be possibly corrected on this assertion, but note that the "relief" that Congress provided in these cities was evidently tax relief on deadlines for tariffs on imported goods, as opposed to providing food and shelter for victims of natural or manmade disasters.
As a side note, I'm going to call the relief that Congress provided for people injured in the theater where Lincoln was assinated as constitutionally unjustifiable, although not surprising with respect to that period.
Getting back to Portsmouth, given the tax relief that Congress provided, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Clause 18 of Section 8, may not have been the constitutional justification for the Relief Act. This is because Clause 17 of that section gives Congress jurisdiction over dock-yards which both Portsmouth and New York have, the previously mentioned relief on deadlines for taxes unsurprisingly being for federal taxes.
As I mentioned in previous post, I think that it would be great if feds provided relief for natural disasters like the one in Moore, Oklahoma. But let's work within the framework of the Constitution for such relief by properly amending the Constitution to grant Congress the specific power to tax and spend for such a purpose.