Quote:
|
The phrase "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" is not a separate power, but a limitation on the power to spend money.
|
Again, you're
assuming that the power to tax implies a generic "power to spend", and then insisting that the modifying clause actually applies to the "implied power" and not the taxation power. I don't think it's anything so convoluted. The phrase
is a limitation on the power to tax. It says what it means, no funky "implicated powers" need be created to fill in the gaps.
Quote:
|
The federal government can spend money on anything serving the common defense or general welfare of the United States (except where explicitly prohibited as I described in my last post). But it cannot take any other actions on that justification, except as authorized elsewhere in the Constitution.
|
Ok, I don't get this at all. You seem to be drawing some distinction between "taking actions" and spending. What's the difference? Spending money always includes some action being taken. And pretty much all actions of the government involve spending money. Once they have a general spending power they can spend on whatever they want, with the only limitations being the "defense and general welfare" and the Bill of Rights (ignoring the tenth, I suppose). No other powers need be listed.
To clarify, can you answer these questions (according to your interpretation):
If the post office power wasn't listed as a power, could congress vote to set one up under the general welfare clause? Why or why not?
The power to set up a national bank isn't listed, could they do that under the general welfare clause? Why or why not?
If "yes" to both, why is one listed and the other not?
Quote:
|
... the limitation "provide for the common defense and general welfare" applies to SOMETHING. And it makes absolutely NO sense to apply it to the power to tax.
|
It makes perfect sense to limit the reasons a tax can be levied. What's so hard to understand about that?
Quote:
|
[the power to raise an army, or to declare war.] There is no restriction of "for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" on either of those powers. Congress is entitled to raise an army, period (for no more than two years at a time). And it's authorized to declare war, period. There's nothing in the document to restrict it only to defensive war.
|
Indirectly there is. When read correctly,
, there
is a restriction on how the can finance it. They can't tax us unless it's to "provide for the defense ...". That's the point of the clause.
To sum up, there's no need to imagine that the power to tax implies a power to spend. It's not written that way, and it makes perfect sense as is. The power to spend is actually covered by the last power which allows congress to do what is "necessary and proper" to act on the other powers (spending, when it's required).