The President is s+pecifically authorized to make treaties which must be ratified, and Congress is specifically authorized to make law regarding "commerce" between the nations. Sounds like they have the power to me, and it's pretty notable that I have never heard an argument that foreign aid is unconstitutional. Is building the White House with government money unconstitutional because it was never specifically mentioned? We approach the realm of absurdity.
Let's examine this argument.
First, I don't know what treaty that we have with which says we will give you X amount of dollars for disaster relief. Not saying that there isn't one, I just don't know of any. If you could be so kind as to point one out, I would appreciate it.
Secondly, Congress cannot make law "regarding" commerce between nations. It can make law regulating commerce between nations. Now, let's look at some definitions from Websters:
regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc
commerce: The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale.
So, according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, based on the dictionary definition of the above words, Congress shall have the power to control or direct by a rule the buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, with foreign nations.
So you tell me, where exactly is there any regulating going on about buying and selling things in the giving away of $1.5 billion?
You may have never heard of the argument that foreign aid is unconstitutional, but I wonder if you're looking. In getting quotes for my rebuttal, I found several. You only have to look.
Now, about the Constitution's giving the President the power to negotiate, and the Congress' authority to authorize treaties. I am first going to make a principle based argument, then deal with some legalities later. Remember, this power is there because the Constitution gives the authority to the government to do so. Therefore, no treaty can nullify any part of the Constitution. As an example, the Third Amendment says:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No treaty, therefore, can authorize the quartering of soldiers in any private citizen's house in time of peaces without that owner's consent. The Supremacy is in the Constitution, not the treaty, as all treaties are authorized by the Constitution.
Legally this is protected based on case law in the Reid v. Covert ruling, to wit, Justice Hugo Black writing the opinion stated:
There is nothing in [the Constitution] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to [it] do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
I will expand upon this in response to Bill's post next.