I have always been a huge fan of private charitable giving, primarily because I believe it is the moral duty of individuals to help one another, and because charitable programs usually exceed the brief of the US Government. 

Government is notorious for giving half the benefit at twice the cost...

That said, there are some benevolences of our government that have made our nation as great as it is today. 

Certainly we benefit from public education, and our food programs have saved people from starvation.  We are a very prosperous nation, or at least we should be.  We can afford many luxuries, including the luxury of controversy, for since we need not spend our time with matters of survival, we can piddle away millions of dollars and our hours debating points of political minutiae with one another.  Certainly, this is a sign of our affluence if nothing else. 

I don't believe many third world countries have long running debates on stem cell research, gay marriage, or trans fat bans...

The quotes you posted was also a time of slavery as an institution. Had those views prevailed at the end of WW2, there'd have been no Marshall Plan. As creative and unique as our Constitution is, it is also a masterpiece of compromise. It could be argued that the instrument is a product despite the heated debates of the founders. It is inaccurate to know the intent of the Founding Fathers, as they disagreed on good number of aspects of government.

Foreign aid has a broader goal than just feeding poor people. As to the legality, the Constitution does give congress charge of the purse strings.

I don't quite get the idea that this is about a fallacy.  A fallacy of what? Logic? Economics? A philosophical fallacy?

How would you express this as a formula?  Maybe like this (using Madison's first quote above):

"If X (charity) was not foreseen as a duty by the original authority (the constitution), X is prohibited for all time."

But that resolves into a fallacy of "appeal to authority".

The constitution, as written by the founders, is the standard authority.
If the founders who wrote the constitution did not foresee (deliberately omitted) a duty toward X, then X is prohibited for all time.

That's the same logical fallacy used to justify the authority of the Holy Bible, the Koran, etc.. In other words, "If it isn't in the bible, you can't do that."

Right?

But that resolves into a fallacy of "appeal to authority".

Well, his quotation of supposed experts does.  I'm not sure what you'd call his main argument.  Undistributed middle, maybe?

The government fortunately is not restricted to doing only those things explicitly spelled out as permissable.  It is restricted as to what it *CANNOT* do (largely in the Bill of Rights) but nothing says that foreign aid cannot be a valuable part of "providing for the common defense."  And that it is done so as an action of the US collectively, confers a benefit which cannot be completely replaced by private charity.

Husband, the fallacy is listed twice "one’s opposition to a governmental policy is to be against the intentions of the policy or it’s founders"

Catpaw, its illegal, read the quotes.

" If one is opposed to a governmental policy, then he is against the intentions of the policy or it's founders."

Another fallacy:  "If one cannot find explicit permission for a policy in the Constitution as amended, that policy is illegal."

Yeah, of course the constitution does not say anything about hybrid cars so of course. However, article 1 section 8 has what congress shal do, if its not there its illegal.

Is it legal for the United States Congress to allow television coverage of its procedings?  Please indicate where in A1S8 that is permitted.

The elastic clause certainly gives Congress the power to pass laws giving foreign aid.

 "If one is opposed to a governmental policy, then he is against the intentions of the policy or it's founders."

This proposition isn't a fallacious (a mistake of logic) argument. Thus, not a fallacy.

Ask the voters of Californian if they were opposed to the government policy that permitted gays to marry. 52.3% of them said yes. So, each of those individuals were

A. Opposed to a government policy  (right of same-sex couples to marry).
b. Opposed to the intentions of the policy (allows same-sex couples to marry).
c. Opposed to the policy's authors (the California Supreme Court)

It does not ALWAYS hold true, but "always" is not the test of a argument. If it holds true ONCE, it's not a fallacy.

Right?

Husband, is this a fallacy?

1. Atoms are not visible to the naked eye
2. Humans are made up of atoms
3. Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye.

It is. It's the fallacy of composition (google it). Not only is the reasoning fallacious, but the conclusion "Humans are not visible" false.

Now consider the following

1. Atoms are not visible to the naked eye
2. Bacteria are made up of atoms
3. Therefore, Bacteria is not visible to the naked eye.

Using your reasoning, that if "It holds true once"it's not a fallacy, then the fallacy of composition would no longer be considered a fallacy since in the case of Bacteria this argument results in a true conclusion.

Did you read my blog? It's not true that a voter would agree with A,B & C in your list. I voted no on 8 but agree with the intentions behind prop 8.

I confess I was confused.  When you gave this proposition the name "State Intervention Opposition Fallacy,”

I knew there was no such named fallacy of logic in the entire literature.  I thought you were saying you'd discovered a new, unnamed, fallacy of logic that hadn't been discovered before. But now I understand the actual fallacy was "fallacy of composition" and that your blog was a deconstruction to show what was wrong with the proposition.

I think we're (finally) on the same page. Sorry to be such a dork.

The historical comments that are posted merely point out that the Constitution does not give permission for humanitarian foreign aid. They do not say it is forbidden to do so. As random pointed out, the Constitution is explicit in stating what government cannot do. There is no ammendment that says government cannot allocate foreign aid.

Foreign diplomacy is more than shaking hands. If food aid to an armpit country helps stabilize a foreign government that accomodates us, then it is in our interest to send foreign aid. This broadens the goals of foreign aid to more than "feeding poor people." Nor does it quite fit the criterion of "charity."  

Husband, I am giving a name to this fallacy. It does not exist apart from my essay.

Catpaw, the constitution lists what congress can do (http://www.usconstitution.n... the founders, who have a better understanding of what the constitution permits the government to do said flat out that it's illegal and not allowed.

The constitution is the law. The law states that I have the freedom to speak and own a firearm, it is therefore illegal for anyone, or any government to take away my gun without reason.

Read the quotes, I dont understand how it can be any clearer. The founders were asked to vote on bills of chairty and they voted it down.

The Constitution is a living document - always has been, always will be.  There's a reason why Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and others made a mark on that document (Madison is not the only author of the constitution).  Madison was a strict anti-Federalist who wanted to keep Government as small as possible. 

Either way, did it ever occur to anyone that our Founding Fathers were only human, and therefore, were not perfect and obviously did not create a perfect government?  There's a reason why we have Amendments.

Of course, without the "charity" of the French, we wouldn't have been able to win our independence in the first place.

Florida, what is a "living document."

I grant their imperfect, so what? That applies to all laws then.

The Constitution was set up in such a way as to be able to move with the times.  For example, many of the founding fathers realized that Slavery should be outlawed, but at that present time, it just wasn't feasible.  They left the Constitution open to both interpretation and amendment knowing that one day such matters would have a different significance to the populous.  You quoted only one author of the Constitution, yet Madison was not alone - he had help from Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, etc.  Therefore, to say that Madison's words are the law of the land is a fallacy, because none of the authors of our government all agreed with each other on every principle.