Federal aid to private companies is unconstitutional in the United States.

Definitions: "Federal aid to private companies" refers to giving specific companies money because they are not economically sound. CON 1- My opponent has taken a clause of the constitution out of context. Though currently, the phrase can be interpretted by the common reader as meaning "providing for the economic defense" or "providing economic protection" or even "to annually redistribute wealth", the meanings of "common Defense" and "general Welfare" have changed over the years. The meaning of common defense back in the time of the constitution is described below. "While the Constitution didn't necessarily allow for elite military operations, it did intend for the government to provide a basic system of defense against enemies of the state. " . http://www.associatedcontent.com... It continues: "U. S. government has, over the years, broadened the definition of defense and has also utilized this role of the government most often. " "Common defense" clearly refers to military defense. Similarly, "general welfare" means to improve the well being of the whole of society . http://home.att.net... By general welfare, the framers meant: "A broad purpose of the government that is constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the Americna people with services and regulations that are for the public good. Such regulations may include health and food standards, public education, and consumer protection. " . http://www.associatedcontent.com... Clearly, federal aid to certain companies is not providing for the common well-being of the population. Neither of these purposes justify federal aid to private companies. CON 1a By my definition, this point is irrelevant, though to provide tax breaks to only certain companies is unconstitutional: "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" (same clause) . http://home.att.net... CON 1b "if the collapse of a multibillion dollar corporation were enough to jeopardize the welfare and security of this nation" The failure of a company will neither jeopardize the "common defense" nor the "general welfare". CON 1c Point C is reliant on point 1a, and falls with it. --------------- PRO 1, 2 Because my opponent's case is the product of broad and false interpretation of the constitution, it falls, leaving my case standing. My opponent has conceded my case if and only if his case falls. ----------------- My opponent throws this in: "additionally, when it comes to interstate policy, commerce, and affairs its the fed's job to intervene and regulate. a lot of these companies (like AIG) span across all 50 states. " What this is saying is that the moment a company goes beyond state borders, "it is the fed's job to intervene and regulate". So, by my opponent's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, all companies not entirely in one state are the property of central government. This false conclusion is the product of a false premise, that being my opponent's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. CONCLUSION: While states have the power to aid private companies, there is no federal authority to do so.