[This is a continuation of a discussion that was taking place on another thread.]
OK, it's conceivable for governments to do these things, but it's not
desirable, and therefore it isn't conceivable that the framers
intended the federal government to have the power to do either of those things. Nor do I see any sign that either of them
were granted. Nor, in fact, do I think
you think they were granted. Which makes me go
at this discussion.
I'm not familiar with the details of what Hamilton did in that context and don't want to defend it without that knowledge, especially considering what I
do know of the man. But we basically agree that the phrase "provide for the general welfare" is not a power in itself but a limitation on a power. Where we disagree, is that I say it is a limitation on the power to spend, where you say it's a limitation on the power to tax.
But unless the power to spend is implied by the power to tax, that limitation on the power to tax makes no sense. A tax, by itself, is
never in service to the general welfare; rather, it's a necessary cost of
other actions of the government which
are in service to the general welfare. If we could have those actions without taxes, we'd be better off. Unfortunately, that's not possible, so we empower the government to tax.
If you look at the clause in the whole, it makes a lot of sense to include spending as part of it, so that it becomes: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . [and use the money so collected] to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The phrase in brackets was not included because it is simply common sense. It's like saying, "I will keep my job so I can pay my bills and feed my family." Well, in reality you pay your bills and feed your family with your paycheck, not your job, it's just that you won't get the paycheck unless you keep your job. So anyone would understand what you're saying there, without needing to insert the phrase, "so I can continue getting my pacheck."
Once again, you need to look at where that semicolon actually appears, and what you are arguing here. You are actually saying that the power to tax, which implies the power to spend, is a separate power, and that is exactly where we disagree. (Of course, you're also saying that "provide for the general welfare" is NOT a separate power, but that's NOT where we disagree.)
I was not making that contention. I was saying, rather, that each of the powers other than this one authorizes acts of government OTHER than spending (possibly excepting the army and navy one). Consider:
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States"
This is not encompassed by the power to spend money.
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Nor is this. It requires legislative powers, not just fiscal ones.
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
Ditto, ditto.
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"
A post office is an official courier for public mail, and the establishment of one, while it does require spending money, also requires certain other things, including the passage of laws regulating use of the mail. Clearly, while the authority to tax and spend is necessary for this, it is not sufficient.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
All of these are powers beyond the spending of money. I mean, look -- suppose I had several billion dollars to spend. Could I use that money to set up a federal court? Of course not; I could buy a building, hire people, etc. but the institution I created would have no judicial standing whatsoever.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;"
All right, now here we come to the only two enumerated powers (after the first one) that on first glance looks like they MIGHT involve nothing more than spending money. But I contend they do involve more. An army is not just a bunch of guys with guns; it's an official military arm of a nation. If I, with several billion dollars to spend, put together a private army and go and invade Mexico with it, that is not an act of war on the part of the United States. I'm the one in trouble for doing that (and those who participate in my army), not the U.S. government. Again, the power to raise an army
includes the power to spend, but it also includes more.
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To 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."
Is it not obvious that every one of these powers transcends the power to spend money? That each of them requires some other authority besides the authority to tax, in order to make them effective? And therefore the power to tax is not properly considered as a general statement of authority, of which the other enumerated powers are particular expressions, but rather as a separate power all on its own, with its own limitations as described in this article and elsewhere: that such spending must be to pay the debts or to provide for the common defense or general welfare of the Untied States, that all imposts and duties must be uniform throughout the United States, and certain other restrictions implied in the Constitution elsewhere. (For example, the government cannot spend money on grants of land to titled nobility, because it would have to grant titles of nobility first and that's prohibited.)
Other restrictions, not immediately obvious, have arisen out of court decisions. For example, in U.S. v. Butler, it was established that the government cannot use spending authority as a way to impose
de facto regulations which are not themselves directly authorized.
So this is not an unlimited power. But neither is it a power which in itself is nonexistent, as some would have it.
I hope this clarifies what I've been saying.