The General Wefare Clause

[Janet Alexander]

The 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund paid out over $7 BILLION dollars to the 
victims of 9/11.  In my opinion, it is entirely proper for the US 
government to provide compensation (at what levels and in what form is a 
separate question) to people who become the victims of terrorists simply 
because they are Americans.  It is because of our country's position in the 
world (and yes, its policies and actions) and not because of any action of 
their own that these individuals were taken hostage, tortured, or 
killed.  Think of it as disaster relief, if you like.

In any event, the hostages to whom you refer -- many of them educators, 
clergy, or journalists -- were attempting to collect on judgments of US 
courts, rendered after trials, and the US government, for diplomatic 
reasons, had prevented them from collecting on US assets of Iran.  The US 
government has the ability to set off the amounts paid in satisfaction of 
the claims against Iranian assets or in future diplomatic negotiations with 
Iran.

         Janet Alexander



At 10:07 AM 3/19/2006 -0600, Sanford Levinson wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C64B6F.4051E407"
>
> From a fascinating story in today's Washington Post:
>
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/18/AR2006031801126.html?referrer=email&referrer=email>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/18/AR2006031801126.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
>
>Administration Blocks Ex-Hostages' Bid for Damages From Iran
>
>By Glenn Kessler
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Sunday, March 19, 2006; A01
>
>At an emotional meeting this month at the State Department, steps from the 
>office of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a group of former American 
>hostages released by Iran a quarter of a century ago, accompanied by 
>lawyers and some relatives, confronted two of Rice's most senior aides.
>
>The families' grievance: Why has the Bush administration, which has 
>labeled Iran one of the world's most dangerous regimes and has called the 
>hostages American heroes, fought their efforts to win damages for their 
>ordeal from the Islamic republic?
>
>The answer is rooted in diplomatic obligations and a wariness about 
>favoring one set of terrorism victims over others. U.S. officials express 
>sympathy for the former hostages. But the administration has thwarted 
>every effort in the courts or in Congress to win a monetary judgment 
>against Iran, even as other victims of Iranian-linked terrorism have 
>secured hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation....
>
>Even if a victim of terrorism wins at trial, it is almost impossible to 
>collect damages. Iran's assets in the United States, for instance, are 
>worth only about $20 million, mainly diplomatic property, according to 
>State Department officials. So Congress in 2000 passed legislation 
>authorizing the payment of $380 million in U.S. Treasury funds to 
>claimants in cases involving 14 victims who were held hostage or killed by 
>Iranian-supported groups such as Hezbollah, according to the Congressional 
>Research Service. Lawmakers ordered the State Department to try to get 
>that money reimbursed by Iran someday.
>
>
>
>So my question is this:  What part of the Constitution, correctly 
>understood, authorizes Conress to give away $380 millioin dollars to 14 
>victims of foreign terrorism?  How does this comport with any notion of 
>"general welfare" beyond "whatever Congress says is the general welfare 
>just IS the 'general welfare'"?  If political conservatives on this list 
>defend this kind of giveaway to the victims of admitted injustice, then I 
>assume that they concede that any and all redistributive programs passed 
>by Congress equally legitimate, as a constitutional 
>matter.  Concomitantly, I presume that political liberals can't really 
>object to such giveaways (which seem to net out at approximately $17 
>million/each of the 14 hostages or estates) and can only envy the 
>political clout that they had with Congress.  (Recall that the US gave 
>only $20,000 compensation to each of the  Japanese and Japanese-American 
>who were "detained" during WWII.)
>
>sandy
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

Janet Cooper Alexander
Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
Stanford CA 94301-8610
650.723.2892
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060319/cc86949e/attachment.htm