The United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy

I would like to start by stating the reason for the "No Supreme Court Cases" rule as brought up by JohnMaynardKeynes in the comments section and Con in the acceptance round. This debate, as I have stated in the introduction, has to do with weather or not social welfare programs "are a legitimate power of Congress under the Constitution in accordance to the intent of the writers and proponents of the Constitution" rather then the supporters of post-20th century living constitutionalism supported by FDR in the 1930's and 1940's. Plus, there's also the benefit of not scouring through the legal jargon of court opinions, oral statements, etc. My argument is relatively simple. The Constitution of the United States gives Congress limited, specific powers most of which are sound in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution (the rest are scattered throughout the document). Among these limited powers are the powers to declare war [1], establish post offices and post roads [2], and to provide for and maintain a navy [3]. Anything outside of these limited powers is put under the 10th amendment which says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". [4] On the other hand, there are some, such as my contender in this debate, who claim that the Constitution grants the government to "provide for the [. .. ] general welfare" [5] as stated in the preamble of the Constitution. The preamble is not a legally binding portion of the Constitution, rather its an explanation of the overall purpose of the document. The Congress, for example, provides for "the common defense" by the powers to declare war [6], raise and maintain an army [7], raise and maintain a navy [8], and define and punish offenses against the law of nations [9]. Similarly, the Congress provides for "the general welfare" by establishing post offices and post roads [10], to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian tribes [11], and to make rules for naturalization and bankruptcies [12]. The other clause that uses the phrase "general welfare" is known as the taxing power. It states that Congress shall have power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" [13] In other words, Congress has the power to impose taxes as a way to raise revenue to pay the debts of the United States (especially the Revolutionary War debts at the time of the Constitution's ratification) and to "provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States". But if you look earlier in my argument, the common defense and general welfare were talking about the enumerated powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 (and various places elsewhere within the document). If Congress can indeed pass any regulation under the broad phrase of "promoting the general welfare", the other powers of Congress, as well as the 10th amendment would be of no use to limit Congress's power as they were intended. Even if the broad construction of the general welfare clause is used, most of the legislation pertaining to social welfare programs are not "general". Instead, they pertain to particular interests like business (such as the bail outs), individuals (such as social security and medicaid) or regional (of which I could not think of anything of the sort at the moment). But what did the Founders have to say about promoting the general welfare? The Elliot Debates, that is, the debates on the ratification of the Constitution in the state legislatures, show a significant amount of debate. In one of the debates, George Mason, an anti-federalist in opposition of the Constitution and a delegate from Virginia, gave a hypothetical scenario where the government turned out to be oppressive and asked if a writer should expose to the people at large the abuses that the government has conducted. He asked the other delegates "Could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? " [14] He also added that "Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction". [15] George Nicholas, a friend of James Madison and a federalist in favor of the Constitution and a delegate from Virginia (I believe) responded to George Mason's concern and said that "The opposers of the clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the common defense; that this general welfare was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common defense, that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the common defense, in consequence of this power". [16] George also made reference to the Necessary and Proper Clause (or the "sweeping clause" in the debate) which states that Congress shall have the power 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". [17] George stated that "The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power. To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the extent of legislative powers. If they exceed these powers, the judiciary will declare it void, or else the people will have a right to declare it void. " I would put more information in, but I'm out of typing room to produce anything substantial, so I'll wait for the next round. Your turn Con. Sources [1]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 [2]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 [3]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13 [4]: Amendment 10 to the Constitution [5]: Preamble to the Constitution [6]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 [7]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 [8]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13 [9]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 [10]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 [11]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 [12]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 [13]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 [14]: The Elliot Debates, Volume 3, Page 442 [15]: The Elliot Debates, Volume 3, Page 442 [16]: The Elliot Debates, Volume 3, Pages 442-443 [17]: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 [18]: The Elliot Debates, Volume 3, Page 443