Under what authority of the Constitution is the federal government authorized to give aid to the tsunami victims? Please point out the specific constitutional provision.
Article 1 Section 9:
Why does this smell like it should have been posted in the Great Debates forum under the title: “Resolved: Tsunami Aid Is Not Constitutionally Authorized” ?
I could be reading too much into it, but I’ve seen too many other government expenditure flamefests begin life in exactly this way.
In Canada the constitutional taxing powers imply spending powers. There are constitutional restrictions on regulation involving spending, but not on spending without regulating. In short, Canadian governments can give what they want to whom they want. From DUNBAR v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN (1984), 11 D.L.R. (4th) 374 (Sask. Q.B.):
I think Kel’s unspoken premise here is that, so far as he can tell, you can’t justify disaster aid for disasters outside the U.S. under the eighteen legitimate Congressional powers of Article I of the Constitution – even interstate commerce doesn’t stretch quite that far, though it’s been the Mr. Fantastic of Constitutional superpowers.
However, any reasonable approach to the Constitution would indicate that funds may be appropriated and expended by Congress for powers not included in Article I or authorized in the various amendments, if such funds are germane to other work authorized in the Constitution. For example, nothing authorizes Congress to appropriate money to pay for the salaries and courtrooms of Federal judges – but it’s a reasonable conclusion that they are in fact entitled to be paid from the public purse.
Among the powers of the President is one broad authorization to conduct foreign affairs, essentially in such manner as he chooses subject to a few limited restrictions: he can’t spend money not appropriated by Congress; he can’t arrive at a treaty the Senate doesn’t consent to (though he can generally achieve the same results with an executive agreement that doesn’t require Senate consent); he may not wage war without Congressional authorization. But nothing stops him from extending aid to the victims of natural disasters elsewhere than in the U.S., either directly or through their governments, under the heading of the conduct of foreign affairs.
Does that mean a damned thing these days?
Try as I may, I cannot come up with one reasonable limitation that rule actually places on what goes on in the world.
I can see your point that war is never ‘declared’ any more, but our current ‘action’ in Iraq did have the consent of congress.
That point would made an excellent Great Debate and an even better Pit thread. [I just finished reading a very moving essay by Spider Robinson in which he was moved to tears by rereading point #4 of Heinlein’s 1950 predictive essay “Where To?” (AKA “Pandora’s Box”) after 2001.]
However, I think it does have substantive meaning yet – a President may not continue to conduct military activity in a place where Congress has explicitly declined to authorize him to do so. They have, tragically, never seen fit to exercise their authority to decide on the validity of foreign wars in a manner that has any effect on what the U.S. does. But if they were to decide, “We ain’t authorizing one penny for U.S. troops in Iraq after March 31, except for 25 Marines guarding our embassy in Baghdad – get 'em out of there as safely as you can before then,” I think Bush would have to comply. (That is not advocating, in GQ, whether they should do so or how he might in reality react – it’s making a statement regarding Constitutional powers relative to a question related to the OP.)