Is the * response to Katrina, strictly speaking, constitutional?

[Wordie]

The founders of our country made very clear their intent as they established our Constitution. They said they were forming the new country to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity."

Take a moment to think about each one of those criteria; the Bush response to Katrina (and implementation of his other disastrous polices) has failed on every one of them. The Bush administration attitude toward "promoting the general Welfare" appears especially egregious, not to mention the "insuring domestic tranquility" part. Yet the republicans talk about "strict construction." Is this the ultimate spin?

For that matter, it appears pretty obvious that the framers of the constitution intended GOVERNMENT to promote the general welfare, not faith-based groups, and intended GOVERNMENT to ensure domestic tranquility, which his ill-advised take-from-the-middle (and lower) to give-to-the-rich tax policy, which increasingly split the country into the "haves" and "have-nots" surely does not do.

Letting contracts worth millions, if not billions of dollars to wealthy cronies certainly is not promoting the general welfare. Is there a way to point this out to America? Have we seen it already in the steadily dropping poll numbers for Bush? Could it be said that to resist these policies, given what our forefounders established, is a patriotic response?