It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of 200 years of case law
The Constitution gives Congress the power to make those decisions on what needs to be done in the interests of We the People
Taking my money to support some freeloader when it comes to social welfare isn't in my interest and I'm one of those we the people.
Then you don't have a problem with a growing military budget since "providing for the common defense" is in the Constitution. At least with those in the military we get something for our money. With social welfare leeches, we get nothing but more social welfare leeches.
You have every right to vote for those candidates who support your positions on social welfare . Others also have that right and the voice of the majority will decide
Same goes for defense. The Constitution call for providing for the common defense. It does not say that defense should be stronger than the next ten nations combined.
Nor does the Constitution authorize the President to abuse the IRS to go after political opposition as an enemy.
To exempt people from taxes who agree with the President's beliefs about health care and ACA
and to penalize those who disagree and believe in other choices.
The President and party are too busy demonizing their political opponents, calling them "terrorists"
and on the other hand consider real attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting to be "workplace violence" and not terrorism.
9/11 was a criminal act by specific individuals, and should have invoked due process and not blame Iraq indirectly
and punish all of Iraq collectively "by association."
But when it comes to health care, ALL the citizens are collectively fined unless we buy insurance to get an exemption.
We are already assumed to be GUILTY of not paying for our own health care, and thus REQUIRED to buy into this plan.
Because of SPECIFIC people who racked up unpaid charges at hospitals, then ALL the public is subject to lose our liberty or free choice.
So the main difference I see between Bush's strategy and Obama's strategy
is Bush was trying to go after foreign enemies,
and collectively damaged broader population than the actual parties guilty of conspiring behind the 9/11 attacks.
And Obama has made enemies of American citizens and created a political war at home.
If you are going to say Bush missed the target, I'd say that Obama missed the target where there wasn't one to begin with.
He either created or incited the very "enemies" to justify attacking them politically for power, and these are American citizens trying to defend our own Constitution which he has demonized.
You can say that Bush is worse for using military force and trillions more dollars.
Or you can say Obama is worse for dividing America at a time we need unity among our nation first,
and the resources wasting fighting over a "made up conflict over ACA" could have been used to help our vets and solve our economic problems. But instead, all those resources got diverted over a conflict created by Obama by pushing ACA in an unconstitutional format that violated the beliefs of Constitutionalists and keeps our nation divided against ourselves.
I think that is worse, because we have to solve this before we can address the other conflicts.
We have to be united around the Constitution principles that are common to all people and parties.
We cannot afford to demean the Constitution and demonize the supporters trying to enforce it.
That is shooting ourselves in the foot, and Obama keeps doing this, keeps dividing against half the nation.
You can't lead a nation that way by demonizing, demeaning and demoralizing half your citizens.
Especially if Obama and Democrats criticize and oppose BUSH for doing that, they have no business doing that either.