The General Wefare Clause

[Sanford Levinson]

Janet is probably correct to compare this to disaster relief, about
which Michelle Landis has written some brilliant articles.  Though,
ironically, Janet's argument, which emphasizes the fact that people
became "victims of terrorists simply because they are Americans" doesn't
explain providing relief to victims of local fires, earthquakes, etc.,
who were not "chosen" for their fate.  One must simple say that Congress
can accept a John Donne-like notion of the "general welfare" and let it
go at that.
 
sandy

________________________________

From: Janet Alexander [mailto:jca at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Sanford Levinson
Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: The General Wefare Clause


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/AR200603
1801126.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/b3f9e979/attachment.htm