Is the Constitutional premise of a 'common defense' dead?

[FormerRepublican]

I've heard Republicans right and left saying the country doesn't have the resources to respond to natural disasters. This simply doesn't make sense. Republicans are eager to spend BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq when it has no direct impact on our common safety. Yet, they are unwilling to spend money that DOES save American lives. It seems clear to me their views lead directly to an end of the constitutional provision to 'provide for the common defense.'

What does 'the common defense' mean?

Mirriam-Webster defines defense as:

"1 a : the act or action of defending <the defense of our country> <speak out in defense of justice> b : a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2 a : capability of resisting attack b : defensive play or ability <a player known for good defense>
3 a : means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or another; also : a defensive structure b : an argument in support or justification c : the collected facts and method adopted by a defendant to protect himself against a plaintiff's action d : a sequence of moves available in chess to the second player in the opening
4 a : a defending party or group (as in a court of law) <the defense rests> b : a defensive team
5 : the military and industrial aggregate that authorizes and supervises arms production"

Isn't 'defense' the protection and saving of American lives? If the Federal Government is unwilling to provide for the common defense, then aren't we better off suceeding from the Union and creating our own governments that can provide for the common defense?

Per the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/

In effect, the Republicans are advocating violation of a number of the protections provided by the Constitution. First, establish Justice. How can Justice exist when one area of the country is protected from disaster, but others aren't? Second, insure domestic tranquility - well, who's going to be happy with the government when government is content to stand idly by while Americans die? Third, provide for the common defense - their actions are inexcusable, since they imply the government has no obligation whatsoever to assist people whose life and welfare are endangered. Fourth, promote the general welfare - well, how the heck can they promote the general welfare when Americans are left to die? Fifth, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - there have been numerous reports of Americans restrained in locations without food or water by show of force, i.e., with guns.

It's clear the Republicans have no intention of supporting the US Constitution. It's also clear George W. Bush has violated his oath of office to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Every elected official who justifies the lack of Federal response to the Katrina disaster is doing the exact same thing - advocating violation of the US Constitution.

EVERYTHING they have done is a clear violation of Constitutional provisions, including the provision for equal protection under the law.

Any lawyers out there want to comment on this?

Any Americans who still value the Constitution want to comment on this?

[Zenlitened]

1. Republicans want to destroy the American people. It's that simple.

And ayone who tells you "Oh, there are good Repubilicans" is just living in a fantasy-land. If you are a republicsn, you are part of the problem. Whether you're a senator, a mayor or simply a registered voter, if you are willing to say "I'm a republican" then you are part and parcel of enabling those who have shown -- again and again -- that they do not have the best interests of America at heart.