In 1887, Congress presented to President Grover Cleveland a bill that would, among other things, provide $10,000 in drought relief to Midwest farmers. His well-known response has been shouted down by the torrent of history, but it bears repeating:
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit...though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."
The power of the Federal Government to spend money is contained, comprehensively, in Article I (pertaining to the Congress), and Section 8 thereof. If you go through this tedious section, you will find a listing of PUBLIC benefits, all logical, and all describing a central government with LIMITED powers, to go along with a number of State governments with UNLIMITED powers. Later, as you read through the Constitution, you come to the Tenth Amendment, which clarifies the point that the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution are COMPREHENSIVE: they have no other powers; and the governmental powers not granted to Congress are reserved to the States (and the people).
Bottom line: Congress is PROHIBITED FROM SPENDING MONEY TO HELP INDIVIDUALS. They can only spend money on PUBLIC benefits.
But hidden among the powers granted to Congress in the aforementioned Section 8 is the following text:
"Congress shall have the power to...regulate Commerce...among the several States..." (Commonly called, "the Interstate Commerce Clause.")
For clarification of this rather simple granting of power, one might note that Congress lacks the power to regulate commerce WITHIN each state. This is why every single state has individually adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates commerce within each State. But Congress has the power to regulate commerce between and among the States. That's it.
EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL LAW THAT PROVIDES BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS RESTS ON THE ITALICIZED WORDS ABOVE. There is nothing else in the Constitution that even hints at an authorization to benefit individual residents of the U.S. with taxpayer funds. In short, these programs and laws and regulations are ALL unconstitutional. To quote President Cleveland again, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
And it hardly bears repeating that when the Founders penned the Interstate Commerce Clause, they had NO INTENTION of authorizing Congress to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on whatever the fuck any compromised Congressperson could dream up to buy votes. It is preposterous to suppose that a provision allowing Congress to regulate commerce between the States gives Congress the right to give money to individuals to go to college, or to plant their crops, or to buy birth control pills, or to get an apartment, or to purchase FOOD or MEDICINE, for God's sake!
And yet, this is where we are. Almost half of all Federal spending is constructed on the sand of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is to say, it is ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
It is feared on the political Left that President Trump's latest Supreme Court appointee will vote as an "originalist" and seek to enforce the Constitution as those who wrote it intended. Does anyone seriously suppose that she will try to reign in the grotesque abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause? No. That would be a bridge too far.
And finally, a word about Social Security. In basic terms, SS was deemed Constitutional because it is NOT CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING(!). The theory is that the citizens deposit money into a figurative Trust Fund, and ultimately they are paid from the Trust Fund, and not from the coffers of the Federal taxpayers. In fact, one still sees mention of the Social Security Trust Fund even though its existence has long ago been rendered obsolete (if it ever actually did exist).
A Supreme Court with respect for the Constitution might decree - given the chance - that all Federal spending that exceeds the SS revenue stream is unconstitutional and must be stopped.
But it won't do that.
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit...though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."
The power of the Federal Government to spend money is contained, comprehensively, in Article I (pertaining to the Congress), and Section 8 thereof. If you go through this tedious section, you will find a listing of PUBLIC benefits, all logical, and all describing a central government with LIMITED powers, to go along with a number of State governments with UNLIMITED powers. Later, as you read through the Constitution, you come to the Tenth Amendment, which clarifies the point that the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution are COMPREHENSIVE: they have no other powers; and the governmental powers not granted to Congress are reserved to the States (and the people).
Bottom line: Congress is PROHIBITED FROM SPENDING MONEY TO HELP INDIVIDUALS. They can only spend money on PUBLIC benefits.
But hidden among the powers granted to Congress in the aforementioned Section 8 is the following text:
"Congress shall have the power to...regulate Commerce...among the several States..." (Commonly called, "the Interstate Commerce Clause.")
For clarification of this rather simple granting of power, one might note that Congress lacks the power to regulate commerce WITHIN each state. This is why every single state has individually adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates commerce within each State. But Congress has the power to regulate commerce between and among the States. That's it.
EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL LAW THAT PROVIDES BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS RESTS ON THE ITALICIZED WORDS ABOVE. There is nothing else in the Constitution that even hints at an authorization to benefit individual residents of the U.S. with taxpayer funds. In short, these programs and laws and regulations are ALL unconstitutional. To quote President Cleveland again, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
And it hardly bears repeating that when the Founders penned the Interstate Commerce Clause, they had NO INTENTION of authorizing Congress to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on whatever the fuck any compromised Congressperson could dream up to buy votes. It is preposterous to suppose that a provision allowing Congress to regulate commerce between the States gives Congress the right to give money to individuals to go to college, or to plant their crops, or to buy birth control pills, or to get an apartment, or to purchase FOOD or MEDICINE, for God's sake!
And yet, this is where we are. Almost half of all Federal spending is constructed on the sand of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is to say, it is ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
It is feared on the political Left that President Trump's latest Supreme Court appointee will vote as an "originalist" and seek to enforce the Constitution as those who wrote it intended. Does anyone seriously suppose that she will try to reign in the grotesque abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause? No. That would be a bridge too far.
And finally, a word about Social Security. In basic terms, SS was deemed Constitutional because it is NOT CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING(!). The theory is that the citizens deposit money into a figurative Trust Fund, and ultimately they are paid from the Trust Fund, and not from the coffers of the Federal taxpayers. In fact, one still sees mention of the Social Security Trust Fund even though its existence has long ago been rendered obsolete (if it ever actually did exist).
A Supreme Court with respect for the Constitution might decree - given the chance - that all Federal spending that exceeds the SS revenue stream is unconstitutional and must be stopped.
But it won't do that.
