To Participate on Thurstonblog

email yyyyyyyyyy58@gmail.com, provide profile information and we'll email your electronic membership


Wednesday, January 20, 2016

"There is nothing unconstitutional about federal disaster aid ..." in spite of what RWNJ Amash believes.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*   ... the problem is that the people who put this schmo in power are affluent, racist White people, and the residents of Flint are ... not.
*  "Promote the general Welfare..." Why do the fundies never acknowledge this part of the Constitution?
    *  ... Allow me to take a shot at this one: According to a guy I argue with constantly, and who is one of the 20 million "Konstitushinal Experts" that have suddenly appeared in the land since the 2008 election of The Black Guy, it's because "Promote the general welfare", like the rest of the Preamble, is merely one aspiration among all the rest, and it's very nice, mind you, but it's not actually anything we should pay attention to. To wingnuts, the Preamble is all mushy, emotional, and dare I say, Liberal, and shouldn't be taken as carved in stone like the main body.
*  What he meant was that the Founding Fathers only intended federal aid for white people.
*  These tea-partiests seem to revel in the display of their historical and political ignorance.
*  Somebody please give the POS mfer some Flint water to drink. At once.
*  I know what else is 'un-Constitutional'. Sociopathic 'conservative' Republicans voting to destroy the lives of THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS.  And this asshat will no doubt be re-elected in a landslide.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A Michigan Congressman Called Federal Disaster Aid Unconstitutional
As he refused to support giving people drinking water in Flint, Michigan.
By Charles P. Pierce, January 19, 2016

The affection of modern "constitutional conservatives" for the governing principles of the Articles of Confederation remains a delightful puzzlement to those of us who thought most of those issues settled in 1788—or, at the very least, 1865. But Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan continues to amaze and astound. He was the only member of the Michigan caucus in the House of Representatives who did not support federal assistance to the city of Flint with regard to its ongoing water crisis. Here is his reason:
"While the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to intervene in an intrastate matter like this one, the State of Michigan should provide comprehensive assistance to the people of Flint," Amash said. "The residents who were harmed deserve an independent, nonpartisan investigation, and the persons responsible for this crisis must be held accountable."
The logical fallacy here is that the state of Michigan has demonstrated that it was at first unwilling, and then unable, to provide comprehensive assistance to anyone anywhere, and that it was the state of Michigan, in the person of its incompetent governor, that acknowledged this by requesting the federal aid in the first place. The constitutional fallacy is what we can call Originalism Amok. There is nothing unconstitutional about federal disaster aid, whether that involves the water in Flint, or tornadoes in Alabama, or hurricanes in Florida. That has been established without constitutional challenge ever since the passage of the Federal Disaster Assistance Program in 1950. They are allowed under the spending power the Constitution provides to the national legislature. (In 1984, the general principle of expanding the use of the congressional spending power within the states was allowed by the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole.) This is the difference between constitutional governance and constitutional fetishism.

Update (5:58 PM): An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that Congressman Amash voted against providing federal disaster relief to the city of Flint. We regret the error.
...................................................................................................................................................................

No comments: