Is giving Foreign Aid legal, according to Constitution?

Taso · #1 07-17-2007, 01:11 PM

I thought I remembered Ron Paul saying that the Constitution does not grant the government the right to donate our tax dollars? I was reading through it, came to Article 1, Section 8, which states what the government CAN do with our tax dollars, which are meant for the "defense and welfare" of THIS country, not other countries.

Is there another article/amendment stating that tax dollars can be given to other countries?

mosdef · #2 07-17-2007, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the "defense and welfare" of THIS country, not other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything the U.S. does that impacts foreign countries also impacts the defense and welfare of the U.S. Under this broad interpretation, anything goes.

Taso · #3 07-17-2007, 01:19 PM

Can you explain that further? For example, how does giving xx amount of dollars to the Tsunami relief fund a few years ago impact the 'defense and welfare" of the U.S.? It seems to impact the welfare of the nation/s that were affected by the Tsunami.

GoodCallYouWin · #4 07-17-2007, 01:25 PM

Anything the U.S. does that impacts foreign countries also impacts the defense and welfare of the U.S. Under this broad interpretation, anything goes.

Taso · #5 07-17-2007, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Anything the U.S. does that impacts foreign countries also impacts the defense and welfare of the U.S. Under this broad interpretation, anything goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was the true line of thinking, if the word was, "impacts", which it is not, then the Congress could, according to you, say that "99% of the taxes are to go to into our pockets." This does, after all, impact the welfare of the nation.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

It is to "provide for the welfare of the United States" not to "impact the welfare of the United States" ANYTHING they do could impact the welfare in some way.

GoodCallYouWin · #6 07-17-2007, 01:39 PM

" then the Congress could, according to you, say that "99% of the taxes are to go to into our pockets."

They can, and someday they will. They got it as high as 80% back in the day.

mosdef · #7 07-17-2007, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain that further? For example, how does giving xx amount of dollars to the Tsunami relief fund a few years ago impact the 'defense and welfare" of the U.S.? It seems to impact the welfare of the nation/s that were affected by the Tsunami.

[/ QUOTE ]

Global economy => disasters anywhere impact U.S. economy => impact on welfare of U.S. "Defense and welfare" is so broad that you basically anything that happens globally falls under this umbrella.

John Kilduff · #8 07-17-2007, 01:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the "defense and welfare" of THIS country, not other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything the U.S. does that impacts foreign countries also impacts the defense and welfare of the U.S. Under this broad interpretation, anything goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems to me to be the problem with this line of thought: it's unmanageably broad, just like the Commerce Clause was interpreted in an tremendously broad and highly stretched manner.

Almost anything can justify or permit anything if we just make our interpretations broad enough.

elwoodblues · #9 07-17-2007, 02:07 PM

I think if you read Art. 1 s 8 clause 1 which includes the ability to tax to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and the international commerce clause (to regulate commerce with foreign nations) coupled with the necessary and proper clause of Art. 1 s 8 clause 18 which gives Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" you have your justification.

Taso · #10 07-17-2007, 02:22 PM

I don't think it is correct to put Foreign Aid under the definition of "commerce". Exchanging goods or commodities is a solid definition. Giving away money is not commerce though. Furthermore, the definition of "regulate" does not include "participate in". Even if one could argue that giving away money is commerce, the constitution does not state the congress can participate in this, only regulate it.

Am I wrong? Please explain, my knowledge of the constitution is limited, and I am trying to learn, really.