In the Introduction to this series, we looked at the Greensburg tornado and the use of Federal Aid. In Part 1 we examined the first of three historical examples of men arguing against the use of Federal Aid. This post is the second in that series.
One of the great tragedies of our time is that we have such a poor knowledge of the people and principles who have guided us in the past. I am as guilty of this as anyone and was very interested to find another, “Davy Crockett” in our 24th President: Grover Cleveland. He showed an exceptional understanding of the Federal Constitution and the prescribed role of government. During his first term in office, farmers in parts of Texas were suffering from a drought. Congress proposed a bill that would give a relatively modest $10,000 dollars to help buy seed for these farmers. On February 16, 1887, President Cleveland vetoed the bill with the following insightful message:
"It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution. Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people’s needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of unfortunate blight.
And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for the appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard this limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
Monday, May 14, 2007
Congressional Page
As many of you know, I recently applied to be a Congressional Page over the summer in Washington D.C. I was nominated by my Congressman, Todd Tiarht, however I recently recieved a note informing me that I would not recieve the job. I just wanted to let everyone know that and thank you all for your prayers and support.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Ron Paul
If this doesn't convince you to vote for Ron Paul I don't know what will:) These are the kind of people that are opposed to him.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Federal Aid- Part 1: Davy Crockett
One story that is often told is of frontier Congressman Davy Crockett. The story below is taken from a pamplet put out by the Constituion Party called, "Not yours to Give!"
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet. Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks. There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again. Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People. I could not answer him, said Crockett. I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to under-stand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot. After finishing the story, Crockett said, Now sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet. Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks. There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again. Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People. I could not answer him, said Crockett. I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to under-stand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot. After finishing the story, Crockett said, Now sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Federal Aid? Or Federal Threat?
Many of you have probably heard of the Greensburg Tornado. Just a few days ago a tornado ripped through this small Kansas town and leveled it completely. Of the 1,500 residents at least ten were killed and many others wounded. The causalities are only expected to rise. It is estimated that the town sustained between 95-100% damage. It is truly a disaster area.
As I was reading the Wichita Eagle today I saw an article by Pat Roberts, the junior Republican senator from Kansas. Here is a quote from that article:
“After touring the devastation, I went east to visit with the victims of the killer tornado at shelters in Haviland, 10 miles away. We spent an hour sharing shock, grief and prayer. The last person I visited with, an elderly gentleman who only had the clothes on his back, sat staring into nothingness, sitting on a cot. He simply looked at me and said, “Senator, thanks for coming; I just don’t know how I will get my life and home back.” That is when I decided we had to cut the red tape that usually is involved in getting a federal disaster declaration and critical assistance to local officials and to homeless residents.”
He goes on to tell of calling the President and receiving the federal disaster aid he and the other Kansas representatives had requested. Most people, including many of my readers probably applaud his decision and concern. It’s also true that most people, including many of my readers are going to be upset and confused when I say this: I could not disagree with that decision more. Allow me to explain.
There are a number of things that keep me from supporting this decision, the lack of Constitutional authorization, the support of government intervention, and the ineffectiveness of federal aid are all things that could be discussed. While most people today support the use of federal funds in disaster situations there is a strong historical precedent against government intervention. Over the next couple of posts I want to look at some historical and Constitutional arguments against the administration of Federal aid and welfare.
As I was reading the Wichita Eagle today I saw an article by Pat Roberts, the junior Republican senator from Kansas. Here is a quote from that article:
“After touring the devastation, I went east to visit with the victims of the killer tornado at shelters in Haviland, 10 miles away. We spent an hour sharing shock, grief and prayer. The last person I visited with, an elderly gentleman who only had the clothes on his back, sat staring into nothingness, sitting on a cot. He simply looked at me and said, “Senator, thanks for coming; I just don’t know how I will get my life and home back.” That is when I decided we had to cut the red tape that usually is involved in getting a federal disaster declaration and critical assistance to local officials and to homeless residents.”
He goes on to tell of calling the President and receiving the federal disaster aid he and the other Kansas representatives had requested. Most people, including many of my readers probably applaud his decision and concern. It’s also true that most people, including many of my readers are going to be upset and confused when I say this: I could not disagree with that decision more. Allow me to explain.
There are a number of things that keep me from supporting this decision, the lack of Constitutional authorization, the support of government intervention, and the ineffectiveness of federal aid are all things that could be discussed. While most people today support the use of federal funds in disaster situations there is a strong historical precedent against government intervention. Over the next couple of posts I want to look at some historical and Constitutional arguments against the administration of Federal aid and welfare.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Press Release
Here is a press release I received from Ron Paul's campaign:
May 08, 2007
Press Release
Ron Paul Builds Momentum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of “The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
* Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC
* Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report
* Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%
* Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%
* Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com
* Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video
* Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com
* Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul
* Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!
* Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
May 08, 2007
Press Release
Ron Paul Builds Momentum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of “The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
* Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC
* Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report
* Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%
* Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%
* Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com
* Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video
* Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com
* Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul
* Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!
* Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
