The Commerce Clause and the All Powerful Congress

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicitly advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

And the standing army was never meant to be permanent.

Article I. Section 8. Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare for the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Article I. Section 8. Clause 16:
'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."

If Congress was to "organize", "arm" and "discipline" the Militia, that doesn't sound like the Founders wanted a group of "amateur" soldiers defending their new country.

But when it comes to commerce and welfare, conservatives argue that there are extreme limits. The fact no such limits exist in the Constitution has conservatives yammering about "intent". The founders were "progressive" enough (Yes..Virginia, it was mostly Liberals that wrote the Constitution) to recognize that the state would grow and that a "template" that was broad in scope for governing was the only way to insure that the United States would be a lasting..and viable nation, for a long time.

So outside of Health Care, we should make sure everyone owns their own home, gets the automobile of their choice ( or two, let's after all not be stingy, and the Chevy Volt was a great government investment ), maybe even free high tech electronics like a plasma tv to make you even more comfortable and relaxed. Did I leave anything out, that perhaps you think the commerce and welfare clause ought to cover? After all, there are no limits with your view of the Constitution now is there?

So in a nutshell, this is all about conservatives seeking to protect the wealthy and powerful businesses at the cost of the indivdual.

Yes you think the rich ought to be taxed endlessly to provide for everyone else in the county, and its the middle class and the poor who REALLY need the tax breaks. I'm sure there were plenty of times when an individual making under $50,000 was able to offer you a job, as long as you had an impressive resume. Makes perfect sense in an economy like this, to continue to tax the big "wealthy business owners" into thinking they will still have enough left over to provide you with enough employment to feed your family. Is this perhaps the reason why Obama and the Democrats have struggled for so long to get the private sector to start hiring? After all, we have seen the many successes found in the unemployment numbers [throughout Obama's first two years in office] to prove promoting taxing the wealthiest of Americans actually works.

 

[code1211]

How anyone can make the leap from "regulate interstate commerce" to force you to buy something from a private company is Beyond me.

As I have stated elsewhere if the Fed wins this argument, then the Fed has become an all powerful force. Who can force you to buy, or do, just about anything, in the name of Regulating interstate commerce.

Whats next, Buy a Chevy Volt or pay a fine? Put Solar panels on your house or be fined?

It would never end. It is far to open ended.

This nation was built on the idea of limiting the Feds power. If the Health care mandate is legal then that Limitation is all but gone.

So under this limitation:

Doctors should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

Lawyers should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

Toy manufacturers should not be subject to any safety regulations.

The food industry should have no standards imposed by them from government.

There should be no safety codes in regards to construction.

The Federal government should never regulate or prohibit what sorts of merchandise gets traded.

There are more..and I could continue...

But are these notions things that are bought into by conservatives? I mean I think they are..just want the clarity.

If it is sold across state lines, it could be regulated under the commerce clause. If not, it's a states rights issue.

Go ahead and continue.

 

[Martin35]

When I was a toddler FDR in a attempt to regulate certain aspects of coal mining used the commerce clause as the vehicle for new legislation and regulation, his test case attempt against a single company was struck down by the Supreme Court.
The ruling so riled FDR's delicate political sensibilities he sought to pack the court with younger "more able to carry the load" members of his own choosing,,, a uniquely Democratic thought,,,, again his attempts were frustrated and the "old" "slow" court members continued their deliberations has set down in the Constitution and in the courts tradition.
Today as we are seeing the more things change the more they are the same,,, same song beyond count verse.
Lawyers,, dang'm they outa take a rope and hang'm.

 

[code1211]

The problem is that people refuse to read and understand the constitution. I just got done reading swallow try and explain why the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual one and have heard NUMEROUS times about how Obama understands the constitution because he was a constitutional scholar or some other such drivel so Obama care can't be unconstitutional. What everyone seems to fail to understand is that the constitution is not that complicated. you do not need to be a scholar to understand what the forefathers were attempting to create or to understand the simple language that it is written in. Application within the broader laws built on the constitution and the nuances of the many situations it can apply to may need far more education but as far as understanding the basics, it is not that difficult. Most of the constitution is written in pretty simple language. It is sad that people in this country need to be told what the constitution says and stands for by others instead of taking the personal responsibility in understanding it.

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicitly advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

And the standing army was never meant to be permanent. Of course the reality of the world changed both those ideals. And this is barely argued among conservatives. The most provocative modern argument was Eisenhower's admonishment about the corporate - military structure.

But when it comes to commerce and welfare, conservatives argue that there are extreme limits. The fact no such limits exist in the Constitution has conservatives yammering about "intent". The founders were "progressive" enough (Yes..Virginia, it was mostly Liberals that wrote the Constitution) to recognize that the state would grow and that a "template" that was broad in scope for governing was the only way to insure that the United States would be a lasting..and viable nation, for a long time.

I have no trouble with Federal limits on indivdual rights. But that is also something that neither argued about much, or, in fact trashed by Conservatives. Once they started defending the idea of "Enemy Combatants" and defending "Torture", any notion, that conservative defend the idea of indivdual liberty was dashed completely.

So in a nutshell, this is all about conservatives seeking to protect the wealthy and powerful businesses at the cost of the indivdual.

You spend allot of time talking about what those you hate think.

It would be more instructive to display what you think. You may posess a better insight into this. I am a Conservative and you don't seem to have a handle on what I think or why I think it.

 

[code1211]

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicit advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

Please point out the clause(s) in the Constitution that lead you to this belief.
Make sure you compare and contrast theese clauses with the powers specifically granted to raise an army and navy.

It's been done by me multiple times for you. Basically your "retorts" are "that's not true".

There's no point in covering this ground over and over.

For the sake of clarity, the portion of the constitution that refers to the military:

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

<snip>
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;

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;

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;
<snip>

 

[M14 Shooter]

Translation:
You cannot deliver.
Not a surprise.

No.
I have in multiple threads with you.
That you can't read the constitution on your own is not my problem. I can only lead a horse to water.

You also cannot show the clause(s) in the the Constitution that support your claim.
That's why you refuse tto cite them. That, and no other reason.

I'll make it easy for you:

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;

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;

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

There. Go ahead.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So in a nutshell, this is all about conservatives seeking to protect the wealthy and powerful businesses at the cost of the indivdual.

You're right as much as it pains me to say it

Forcing people to buy products they don't need or want is a great way for fucking politician to pay off their corporate owners.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's been done by me multiple times for you. Basically your "retorts" are "that's not true".

There's no point in covering this ground over and over.

Translation:
You cannot deliver.
Not a surprise.

No.

I have in multiple threads with you.

That you can't read the constitution on your own is not my problem. I can only lead a horse to water.

In any case. Since I am constantly answering your questions..and the very same questions thread after thread. Allow me to pose a couple.

What was the Militia act all about?

What happened to the Continental Army after the American Revolution?

Then enlighten the rest of us or post a link to your previous posts that explain this.

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem is that people refuse to read and understand the constitution. I just got done reading swallow try and explain why the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual one and have heard NUMEROUS times about how Obama understands the constitution because he was a constitutional scholar or some other such drivel so Obama care can't be unconstitutional. What everyone seems to fail to understand is that the constitution is not that complicated. you do not need to be a scholar to understand what the forefathers were attempting to create or to understand the simple language that it is written in. Application within the broader laws built on the constitution and the nuances of the many situations it can apply to may need far more education but as far as understanding the basics, it is not that difficult. Most of the constitution is written in pretty simple language. It is sad that people in this country need to be told what the constitution says and stands for by others instead of taking the personal responsibility in understanding it.

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicitly advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

And the standing army was never meant to be permanent. Of course the reality of the world changed both those ideals. And this is barely argued among conservatives. The most provocative modern argument was Eisenhower's admonishment about the corporate - military structure.

But when it comes to commerce and welfare, conservatives argue that there are extreme limits. The fact no such limits exist in the Constitution has conservatives yammering about "intent". The founders were "progressive" enough (Yes..Virginia, it was mostly Liberals that wrote the Constitution) to recognize that the state would grow and that a "template" that was broad in scope for governing was the only way to insure that the United States would be a lasting..and viable nation, for a long time.

I have no trouble with Federal limits on indivdual rights. But that is also something that neither argued about much, or, in fact trashed by Conservatives. Once they started defending the idea of "Enemy Combatants" and defending "Torture", any notion, that conservative defend the idea of indivdual liberty was dashed completely.

So in a nutshell, this is all about conservatives seeking to protect the wealthy and powerful businesses at the cost of the indivdual.

Has almost nothing to do with the above quote. All you did was assign conservatives a bunch of beliefs that are not true or misrepresented. Reading and understanding the constitution is also not arrogant, its responsible. As I said, it is not that complicated. From the way our politicians act on a regular basis, it is clear that most of them have not even bothered to read the document in which they get their responsibilities from. There is no way that I am going to let THEM explain what powers the constitution gives them. I would much rather go to the source as the natural inclination of people seems to be running a mile when the constitution only gives them an inch.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But when it comes to commerce and welfare, conservatives argue that there are extreme limits.

What are the limits, Sallow?

 

[Sallow]

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicitly advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

And the standing army was never meant to be permanent.

Article I. Section 8. Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare for the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Article I. Section 8. Clause 16:
'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."

If Congress was to "organize", "arm" and "discipline" the Militia, that doesn't sound like the Founders wanted a group of "amateur" soldiers defending their new country.

But when it comes to commerce and welfare, conservatives argue that there are extreme limits. The fact no such limits exist in the Constitution has conservatives yammering about "intent". The founders were "progressive" enough (Yes..Virginia, it was mostly Liberals that wrote the Constitution) to recognize that the state would grow and that a "template" that was broad in scope for governing was the only way to insure that the United States would be a lasting..and viable nation, for a long time.

So outside of Health Care, we should make sure everyone owns their own home, gets the automobile of their choice ( or two, let's after all not be stingy, and the Chevy Volt was a great government investment ), maybe even free high tech electronics like a plasma tv to make you even more comfortable and relaxed. Did I leave anything out, that perhaps you think the commerce and welfare clause ought to cover? After all, there are no limits with your view of the Constitution now is there?

So in a nutshell, this is all about conservatives seeking to protect the wealthy and powerful businesses at the cost of the indivdual.

Yes you think the rich ought to be taxed endlessly to provide for everyone else in the county, and its the middle class and the poor who REALLY need the tax breaks. I'm sure there were plenty of times when an individual making under $50,000 was able to offer you a job, as long as you had an impressive resume. Makes perfect sense in an economy like this, to continue to tax the big "wealthy business owners" into thinking they will still have enough left over to provide you with enough employment to feed your family. Is this perhaps the reason why Obama and the Democrats have struggled for so long to get the private sector to start hiring? After all, we have seen the many successes found in the unemployment numbers [throughout Obama's first two years in office] to prove promoting taxing the wealthiest of Americans actually works.

Again..a militia.

Not to be funded for more then 2 years without a vote.

There's no such stipulation on the navy.

And the clause you quoted also provides for the power to levy taxes, promote the general welfare and the ability to regulate commerce.

And yeah..I believe in a progressive tax system. The rich use more resources..they should pay for it.

 

[Sallow]

How anyone can make the leap from "regulate interstate commerce" to force you to buy something from a private company is Beyond me.

As I have stated elsewhere if the Fed wins this argument, then the Fed has become an all powerful force. Who can force you to buy, or do, just about anything, in the name of Regulating interstate commerce.

Whats next, Buy a Chevy Volt or pay a fine? Put Solar panels on your house or be fined?

It would never end. It is far to open ended.

This nation was built on the idea of limiting the Feds power. If the Health care mandate is legal then that Limitation is all but gone.

So under this limitation:

Doctors should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

Lawyers should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

Toy manufacturers should not be subject to any safety regulations.

The food industry should have no standards imposed by them from government.

There should be no safety codes in regards to construction.

The Federal government should never regulate or prohibit what sorts of merchandise gets traded.

There are more..and I could continue...

But are these notions things that are bought into by conservatives? I mean I think they are..just want the clarity.

If it is sold across state lines, it could be regulated under the commerce clause. If not, it's a states rights issue.

Go ahead and continue.

Okay..so your one who thinks that the Federal government should not be keeping our food safe, our doctors and lawyer competent and products manufactured by our industries subject to quality control.

Got it.

Third world countries feel the same way.

 

[code1211]

So under this limitation:

Doctors should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

Lawyers should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

Toy manufacturers should not be subject to any safety regulations.

The food industry should have no standards imposed by them from government.

There should be no safety codes in regards to construction.

The Federal government should never regulate or prohibit what sorts of merchandise gets traded.

There are more..and I could continue...

But are these notions things that are bought into by conservatives? I mean I think they are..just want the clarity.

If it is sold across state lines, it could be regulated under the commerce clause. If not, it's a states rights issue.

Go ahead and continue.

Okay..so your one who thinks that the Federal government should not be keeping our food safe, our doctors and lawyer competent and products manufactured by our industries subject to quality control.

Got it.

Third world countries feel the same way.

Not exactly. I am one who thinks that we live in a nation of laws and should abide by those laws. You, apparently, do not share that belief.

Just out of curiosity, are doctors and lawyers licensed in the USA or in particular states? Is food regulated by the USDA if it is grown and consumed within one particular state and never crosses a state line to get to the consumer?

Third world countries are noted by their lack of adherance to a code of law. You seem to prefer that.

The Commerce Clause:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


Please note that this says Among the several states and NOT within the several states.

The Framers understood the language and were pretty jealous of the rights of the States and suspiscious of the reach of the Federal Government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again..a militia.
Not to be funded for more then 2 years without a vote.

That's the --army-- that's not to be funded for more than 2 years, not the militia.
How does this support your position?

And the clause you quoted also provides for the power to levy taxes, promote the general welfare and the ability to regulate commerce.

Bzzzt. Nope. Try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So under this limitation:
Doctors should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.
Lawyers should not be forced to acquire licenses from the government.

You know these are state, not federal, licenses right?
And they are not from a government agency per se, but the relevant professional associations/boards?
The answer: Obviously not.

Toy manufacturers should not be subject to any safety regulations.
The food industry should have no standards imposed by them from government.

See: Strawman - "Moral High ground"

There should be no safety codes in regards to construction.

Again: State, not federal codes.

The Federal government should never regulate or prohibit what sorts of merchandise gets traded

Like... cocaine?

There are more..and I could continue...

And you'd only continue to illustrate your complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Oh look - no response from Sallow.

 

[FA_Q2]

I've read it multiple times..and I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand each and every concept.

But it's curious that in terms of defense, conservatives have an extremely broad interpretation of what the Constitution allows for, even though it's a great deal more explicit the both the Commerce and Welfare clauses.

The Constitution explicitly advocated for a citizen soldier not a professional one. That's for starters.

And the standing army was never meant to be permanent.

Article I. Section 8. Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare for the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Article I. Section 8. Clause 16:
'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."

If Congress was to "organize", "arm" and "discipline" the Militia, that doesn't sound like the Founders wanted a group of "amateur" soldiers defending their new country.





So outside of Health Care, we should make sure everyone owns their own home, gets the automobile of their choice ( or two, let's after all not be stingy, and the Chevy Volt was a great government investment ), maybe even free high tech electronics like a plasma tv to make you even more comfortable and relaxed. Did I leave anything out, that perhaps you think the commerce and welfare clause ought to cover? After all, there are no limits with your view of the Constitution now is there?

So in a nutshell, this is all about conservatives seeking to protect the wealthy and powerful businesses at the cost of the indivdual.

Yes you think the rich ought to be taxed endlessly to provide for everyone else in the county, and its the middle class and the poor who REALLY need the tax breaks. I'm sure there were plenty of times when an individual making under $50,000 was able to offer you a job, as long as you had an impressive resume. Makes perfect sense in an economy like this, to continue to tax the big "wealthy business owners" into thinking they will still have enough left over to provide you with enough employment to feed your family. Is this perhaps the reason why Obama and the Democrats have struggled for so long to get the private sector to start hiring? After all, we have seen the many successes found in the unemployment numbers [throughout Obama's first two years in office] to prove promoting taxing the wealthiest of Americans actually works.

Again..a militia.

Not to be funded for more then 2 years without a vote.

There's no such stipulation on the navy.

And the clause you quoted also provides for the power to levy taxes, promote the general welfare and the ability to regulate commerce.
And yeah..I believe in a progressive tax system. The rich use more resources..they should pay for it.

Bad reading comprehension here. The power is to
" The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,"

In order TO

"to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare for the United States;

But they must BE:

but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

So, no, congress does not get unlimited power from the commerce clause and general welfare does not mean that congress can do anything they want to promote it. The power is NOT to promote the general welfare. THEY CAN TAX, THAT'S IT. They CAN spend that money to promote the general welfare but it is NOT an open ended power in of itself. That is why the mandate is unconstitutional as with MANY other things the congress does/wants to do. The heart of that is the fact that congress can tax for the general welfare AKA: pay for police, fire and the like. The funny thing is that the single payer WOULD be constitutional under this even though it would be a disaster but that is for another thread. The power in this clause is NOT open ended but it is actually rather specific. What is more open ended is what congress can spend the money on.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Again..a militia.

Not to be funded for more then 2 years without a vote.

There's no such stipulation on the navy.

And the clause you quoted also provides for the power to levy taxes, promote the general welfare and the ability to regulate commerce.

And yeah..I believe in a progressive tax system. The rich use more resources..they should pay for it.

Congress MUST ( according to the Constitution ) provide for the Common Defense, there's nothing to suggest this is to be only a "temporary" force.

As far as using the Welfare Commerce excuse: The real problem is the Government hasn't proven itself to be more "fiscally" effective than in the private sector. Especially with the recent PUSH, by Obama and the Democrats, to add National Health Care to the Federal budget. Now we can already see how well the Federal Government runs things like Social Security, Medicare, or even the United States Post Office. In fact Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid make up 40.9% of the total US Budget, compared to the discretionary defense fund of 20.5%. Each example I'm sure you'd say are are VERY cost effective, and there is no need to question any of them of being financially sound and very cost efficient. After all, it's the Federal Government we are talking about.
Of Course if you can site me an example of how efficient the Government can run things, I'd be more than happy to have you inform of of such "projected government standard of excellence".
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I can also see how the "rich paying for it" has helped the economy over the past two years under Obama. The threat of raising taxes has only slowed or stalled the economy, as unemployment has only dropped by a total of 1% since Obama took office. The problem with the left, is they desire to offer all these programs ( under the "claim" it's covered under the Welfare and Commerce Clause ) without any real long term plan of how to pay for them. AGAIN all these programs already make up 40.9% of our total US budget BEFORE the addition of Health Care. Such additional programs will only lead to a faster track towards a higher deficit, and risking the solvency of the US dollar.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bad reading comprehension here. The power is to
" The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,"

In order TO

"to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare for the United States;

But they must BE:

but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

So, no, congress does not get unlimited power from the commerce clause and general welfare does not mean that congress can do anything they want to promote it. The power is NOT to promote the general welfare.

I always ask, I never get an answer:

If Article I Sec 8:1 was, in and of itself, intended to give Congress the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare, why then was it necessary to include the 16 clauses that follow it?

Under the argument to that effect, Congress need only 2 powers -- the first and the last.

 

[boedicca]

The Commerce Clause is not a "just kidding" loop hole inserted by the Founders to enable unfettered government power.

 

[FA_Q2]

Bad reading comprehension here. The power is to
" The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,"

In order TO

"to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare for the United States;

But they must BE:

but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

So, no, congress does not get unlimited power from the commerce clause and general welfare does not mean that congress can do anything they want to promote it. The power is NOT to promote the general welfare.

I always ask, I never get an answer:

If Article I Sec 8:1 was, in and of itself, intended to give Congress the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare, why then was it necessary to include the 16 clauses that follow it?

Under the argument to that effect, Congress need only 2 powers -- the first and the last.

You will never get an answer to that because there is no answer. The clause is clearly limited to the powers directly following the statement.