There MUST be someone to hold accountable - rehashing the 9-11 Victim Fund

[tniassaint]

Kenneth Feingold was on the radio this morning and was discussing his role in several mass settlement deals where victims of various events attempted to receive compensation through large funds set aside for that purpose. Honestly, Feingold is one of those people who are so easy to dislike; but he executed his responsibilities with a certain level

Comments

[kylinrouge]

Constitutionally, this is the general welfare clause. The same thing that our social programs are based on. To pay out compensation you do not need necessarily to structure your argument to say that this must be viewed in the legal spectrum of a court case. How and when to dispense funds via the general welfare clause is up to Congress, but the Constitutionality of these funds is very clear.

[tniassaint]

I disagree that this falls under the "General Welfare" clause and specifically as the law establishing the fund specifically cited the protection of the airlines. This was done preemptively to limit the airlines exposure to torte liability - in what I think can soundly be called poor logic.

I have seen nothing that established the Constitutionality of the fund under those terms. Can you provide that? (Not being snippy, I 'd really like to see something like that.)

[kylinrouge]

I don't know, look at the Constitutionality of any government funds dispensed to victims since this country's creation? When natural disasters happen? This isn't new, and it isn't under any Constitutional question.

[dwer]

[dwer]

In your interpretation. I'll let the readers judge on the validity of that.

[dwer]

and hey, for another bonus track, let's remember that Hamilton is ONE GUY and isn't the boss of me or anyone else.

I get that you think that "for the general welfare" doesn't mean anything. What you don't seem to get is that a whole lotta people disagree.

[tniassaint]

I do not believe that General Welfare is intended for such a generally small and select group and is not intended for this sort of purpose. It is a clause that is intended for the purpose of the National General Welfare - and in most interpretations it is not a general statement providing for sweeping permissions for the Federal Government to do whatever it wants as that would undermine the entire Constitution with regards to the limitations of the powers of the various branches.

[dwer]

Ok. I think it's intended for EXACTLY such a purpose -- taking care of something that needs to be taken care of that isn't covered under something else.

[tniassaint]

General Welfare doesn't mean anything for any reason - and is to be general in nature - of national interest

[dwer]

the Constitution has to be used today. The intentions of the founders, as murky as they are, grow less relevant every day. That doesn't mean that I think that government should do everything, but there's an existing society that cannot simply be tossed aside like a used tissue.

We've already talked about how the airlines can be viewed as providing a perception if security; I agree that a law wasn't necessary, but I wouldn't have prevented the lawsuits; rather I would have expected the airline to make their case, and be done with it.

It would have been great had the terrorists had financial resources to seize and distribute, but they didn't; and I think that since one of the specified responsibilities of the government IS to provide for the common defense, making the government pay the bill IS appropriate.

[telemann]

Yeah, really, considering 9/11 was obviously an event of national security, I'm sure you could find some way to cover 9/11 responders as part of that national security event. That's what DOJ lawyers are good at, no?

[underlankers]

There's an even stronger historical case that the Founders were incapable of adhering to their own words so the argument that we today must do as they said and not as they did is rather somewhat flawed. Arguing from history politically is very risky business.