RIGHTinNYC:
I have reviewed your posts as I am a relative newbie here and though you claim to have explained "dozens" of times I can't see anything but a bunch of 1, 2 and a couple 3 liners..
So why don't you go ahead a waste a little time here and explain how the Constitution ALLOWS the programs listed above as UN-Constitutional and I believe, frankly, are just that..
I am not being facetious I want to understand how we got this far off course and you obviously have a good understanding so please share.
Not a problem.
The Constitution states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
It then goes on to list a group of things that Congress is specifically permitted to do, and then adds this at the end:
[Congress shall have power t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The precise meanings of these phrases have long been the subject of debate, even back to the drafting of the Constitution itself. In regards to the first clause, giving Congress the power to tax and spend "to provide for the . . . general welfare of the United states," there were two main views on this:
Madison believed that this language was almost designed as filler, intended to describe the general nature of Congress's spending powers. He believed that Congress could only spend on the things that were specifically enumerated in the Constitution, as those were the only things that were covered by the language. To him, the general welfare clause did not create any powers.
Hamilton believed that this clause created a power in and of itself. He believed that it was akin to the elastic clause, saying that Congress does not only have the power to spend on the things that were specifically enumerated, but also on things that are for the "general welfare" of the nation, with some further qualifications.
The conflict between these two views was never resolved. For the first decade after the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton's view prevailed. After that, it's unclear which view was the most prominent. This confusion lasted until the 1930's.
Up until this point, the Supreme Court had generally indicated that it leaned more toward the Madisonian interpretation. In
U.S. v. Butler, this changed. The court held 6-3 that the Hamiltonian interpretation of the clause was the proper one, stating:
The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected, unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated 'to provide for the general welfare of the United States.' These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money. How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument?
Since the foundation of the nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
(internal citations omitted)
This conclusion has not been questioned by the court in the 70 years since the decision was handed down. The end result is that Congress has the power to tax and spend for things that further the general welfare of the nation, rather than simply for those things that are specifically enumerated.
Now, there are many people who disagree with the Court's decision in Butler. I happen to be one of them. I have concerns with the way the court arrived at its conclusions, FDR's influence on the court, and the societal pressures being exerted due to the majorities in Congress and the Depression. However, I recognize that the decision was handed down 70 years ago, it has not been overturned by the Court, and we have built an entire society on those foundations. As a result, I neither believe nor hope that it will be overturned in the future.
Some people would disagree with me and argue that the decision should nevertheless be overturned. ARealConservative is a good example of a poster who understands the situation, yet arrives at a different conclusion than I as to what should be done. I don't mind his position, because he arrives at it intelligently and can see where I'm coming from, even if he disagrees.
Then, there are those who don't understand the situation and are either unwilling to or incapable of appreciating why we are where we are. Scarecrow is a good example of a poster like this. He simply repeats his mantra over and over again without actually explaining why he feels the way he does or acknowledging that he's advancing a fringe position. I don't waste my time arguing with him over this because he has nothing to add to the discussion.
I hope this has been useful.
(I just realized that I didn't explain the issue with the Necessary and Proper Clause, but it's not really necessary [lol law dork pun] to understand what I'm talking about here. If you would like to know more on that, I'll try to explain later if I have more time.)