Today the House passed the first 9.7 billion increment to the National Flood Insurance Fund—with many Republicans voting yea.
I ask what provision of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to sponsor or pay into such a fund.
Federal Flood Insurance Unconstitutional?
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/federal-flood-insurance-unconstitutional/trackback/
You may like to put this question to the many people still waiting for the financial help they require to rebuild their lives following the storm. People to whom flood insurance would be denied by a private company. Maybe try looking them in the eye while you do.
Or perhaps you suggest they pray and hope for a miracle?
Or, given the wealth of the church and their claim to represent God on earth, should they not provide financial help without the need for government intervention. After all … is that not what ‘God would want’?
Thomas: Your diatribe was unwarranted. The question put was “Is federal flood insurance unconstitutional?” It hardly need be said that your comment was totally unresponsive. If you wish to comment here, please confine your remarks to the point at hand.
That question could be asked about 99% of what this government does.
Freeper: I think that the actual amount is about 70%–which is what I came up with when I first studied the matter back in 1993.