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
(
Read more... )
The argument that the use of the general welfare clause is ahistorical expired faster then last year's tuna fish in the mid 90s.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment