Federal Katrina Spending

[A18]

Definitely not.

Congress has power to tax and spend only for the general welfare.

[A18]

The welfare concerned here is local, not general.

[A18]

The SCOTUS would take the view that if you don't like how Congress is spending your money then vote them out - and that's the way it should to be in any democracy.

What an absurd post. The Constitution is above democracy.

[A18]

Right. So local, not general.

[A18]

I wasn't disagreeing that's what our worthless Supreme Court would do. I was disagreeing with the idea that that's what they should do.

[A18]

General means nation, as distinguished from local. Something is not the "general welfare" because it has an impact on the national economy. That test is so flawed, if you told it to big government Hamilton, he'd laugh in your face.

[A18]

The general welfare clause allows the federal government to pursue interests that are firmly outside the natural sphere of the states, as the Supreme Court correctly held in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

[A18]

An interstate highway system is general. Building a single road in Alaska is local. It doesn't matter whether or not Alaska can afford the road.

The interest is only general if it is, by its nature, national, and not local.

[A18]

That's not an argument. All you said is that it's not unconstitutional.

[A18]

The interest is only general if it is, by its nature, national, and not local.

Exactly.

I'm glad you agree with me that this is unconstitutional, then.