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

[dwer]

The argument that the use of the general welfare clause is ahistorical expired faster then last year's tuna fish in the mid 90s.

[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.

I agree with you to some degree, but I from my understanding the Founders did not see it as a general catch all. The general consensus, as I recall, was that it was not intended as a general expansion of powers for whatever reason and whim.

The Hamiltonian view which is generally the one accepted in most legal issues is that the clause is intended to allow for other special and otherwise not covered issues of national interest and not to favor one region, party, political platform and or special interest over any other. In this case it is and was a very specifically narrowly defined interest group. I am not saying these people did not suffer and that, as a nation, we do not feel for their circumstances. What I disagree with is the potentially punitive stance that the law was formed over and that it was portrayed as a protection for airlines that should not have needed protection in the first place were the law handled in a logical, moral and reasonable manner. It was stated as being made to protect the airline and its security industry from civil liability when they were clearly the victim of something far beyond anything they were prepared or were required to be prepared for at that time.

As I stated in another thread here... It would be as if an attractive girl in suggestive clothing got attacked, and in the course of helping her, one of her rescuers got knifed - so the family sued the girl for wearing revealing clothes. Put the blame and the financial responsibility where it belongs - on the perpetrators.

[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.

[underlankers]

There's a very strong case that in this case hypocrisy *is* the idea. At least where Strict Constructionism is concerned.

[underlankers]

So do those like you who focus only on what the Founders wrote, as opposed to what they actually did. The Northern Founders, for one thing, all abolished slavery, the Southern ones preserved it. Which set of Founders was right? All Founders agreed equally that repressing the Whiskey Rebellion was necessary and proper despite that modern generations would call that thuggery at best. Which Founders do we want to adhere to, the ones that wrote or the ones that acted? As their actions in every single case were not remotely what they wrote and said they'd do.