Point taken...

Look, I'm not going to respond to each point you made... its pointless. Here is exactly where we diverge in our positions on New Deal, FDR and the rest:

You have stated that the US Federal government does not have the authority, enumerated or otherwise, to spend outside of a balanced budget in any event outside of national defense and security. Thus, in the event of a natural disaster like the 1906 San Francisco earthquake or Hurricane Katrina, all assistance from the Feds must be appropriated through legislative budgetary means before it can ever be applied to relief or recovery. Flooding on the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers will become the sole responsibility of the States effected, and no assistance or funding should be made from Federal sources, no matter how much of Memphis, Cleveland or New Orleans is underwater. According to your views, unless we are invaded, attacked or overtly threatened by a foreign power or insurgent domestic rebellion from within, there is no need, call or right for the Feds to spend one dollar more than they are budgeted to spend. IF that is your position, and I have correctly summed it up, then I can respect the view and will expect you to hold to it, regardless of circumstances.

I, on the other hand, maintain that ANY threat to our society and its means of existence constitutes a "national security threat" and warrants Federal attention, if needed and requested by the individual States. Since MS, LA, and AL don't have the means to print their own money the way the Feds do, immediate deficit funding isn't always available in the same way it is with the Federal government. Thus, when a Cat 5 hurricane comes and wipes another 25 counties worth of American homes, businesses, police and fire departments, infrastructure and communications off the face of the earth, these States depend on the availability of Federal funding to immediately begin relief and recovery efforts. The same is true for earthquakes in CA, flooding in the Midwest, ice storms in the Northeast. If American lives are in danger, be the cause natural, foreign or domestic... I say the Feds have a responsibility to answer the calls for assistance by the individual States. That is EXACTLY the kind of response I feel was justified in the New Deal efforts of the first 100 days of FDR's terms, and any programs or policies that have survived since the end of WWII have already been determined to be Constitutional and need only be repealed by a conservative majority in both Houses.

It would seem our biggest difference is in defining the scope of the Great Depression. If you agree that American lives at risk is a national security issue, then you must not think anyone's lives (or the security of the nation) were at risk during the Great Depression. I'm not saying you're wrong... economic crisis is a very different thing than the threat of invasion by the Imperial Japanese Navy. I, however, think the former was the more immanent threat than the latter, that is all. Furthermore, I contend that when our economy is as weak and fragile as it was in 1930, and as many American lives were in turmoil as they were, then we were in a "national emergency" that warranted intervention.