Why is this any different than spending money on any project that benefits just a few? The govt has done the same thing on a smaller scale in previous hurricanes in NC and Fla. The do the same after california earthquakes.
It is common for a govt project to benefit one or just a few property owners.
We install sewer lines to serve merely one peice of property.
Government builds roads etc. to benefit a single business as well as offerieng tax breaks to recruit business.
Of course, this is not usually the federal govt but the principal is the same.
Do we compalin if it is personal property that is replaced, like clothing or diapers for the kids. Or do we complain only about real property. The where do you draw the line. Its ok to fix the sewer but repairs to a damages roof is unacceptable.
They ought to worry more that the Supreme Court allows emminent domain to be used to allow the govt to grab property and then deed it over to an individual.
Posts: 81 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question wasn't so much about whether or not it is right or have they done it in the past, but is it constitutional?
I think our current government is way beyond unconstitutional. The federal government is quite a bit larger than it was originally intended to be. In my opinion, the state and local governments need to be in charge of these kinds of efforts, but trying to re-implement that would take way too much effort.
-------------------- If you don't sweat the pennies, you're not making any money. Posts: 2218 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Country is "quite a bit larger than it was originally intended to be", but size isn't a part of what the Constitution is about and it doesn't consider such things.
However, it may come to pass, in an country of any size, that spending funds on private property promotes the general welfare of the populace. Such is the case in New orleans. It is the fundamental function of a government and is specifically noted within the Preamble to the Constitution that, " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spending money to rebuild New Orleans is preferable to blowing it on Halliburton contracts in Iraq. That's unconstitutional.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
anything rebuilt in NO with taxpayer money should include provision for: 1) elevated structure 2) as many boats on lowest level as needed for inhabitants to flee when necessary...
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
