The Constitution gives congress the the power of social welfare

1. No restriction cited I’m not planning on a surprise argument. The powers of the Government are limited to those in article 1 section 8, and the limitations on article 1 section 8 is listed in article 1 section 9, or the amendments. There would be no point in arguing this unless to refute a power listed in article 1 section 8. 2. GW clause grants plenary spending power After attacking my reading skills my opponent has gone so far as to misrepresent my stance on the “welfare clause”. I never once claimed congress did not have a power to spend, but quite the contrary. I said that congress’s power to collect revenue is limited to the appropriation, and the appropriation is limited to the common defense, and general legislation. Appropriation means drawing money from the treasury. I have also stated that the common defense and general welfare clause are not a grant of power, but rather a qualification of the power to collect and appropriate taxes, and that the actual grants of power resides in later clauses. He merely rehashed his original argument for this point in this round, so I won't refute it the same way again, but I extend my arguments from last round. Let's look at a less politically charged example. Consider the following. My opponent has used a bike analogy but was using a half truth. Also the analogy has to be worded the same, otherwise it loses relevance. I have the power to sell my car. -- The speaker has the power to sell his car. I have the power to sell my care, to pay for my bills and to provide for living expenses and for my family – Obviously the speaker is not using the money from selling his car to buy video games, but rather to pay off his bills, and to fund his living expenses, and his family’s expenses. Thus the latter is a qualification of the sale. To take this steps further let’s make it resemble all of article 1 section 8; I have the power To sell my care, to pay for my bills and to provide for living expenses and for my family; To use a credit card; To put my kid through college; To purchase food; To purchase clothing; To finance medical treatment; To pay for anything necessary for and related to the above listed; - - Maybe it’s just me, but it seems as though the power to spend the money has become even more limited for the speaker. My opponent makes the claim that later clauses were added because more is required than just spending. However “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;” clearly is a spending power; the power to hire troops, and the power to purchase supplies for the troops. This would be similar to the social welfare power “To pay unemployment benefits, and provide food stamps”, which is absent from the document. Obviously social welfare is not covered by article 1 section 8. (1) 3. The founders agreed the spending clause was broad My opponent still seems to think Hamilton believed that General Welfare was a grant of power, but if you read on, he continues to say; “It was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition. It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.” (2) Meaning general welfare is a qualification of the appropriation of money, but it is up to congress to determine what that qualification’s limits are, because the qualification is broad. Hamilton goes on to say “That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.” (2) Not once did I concede that the first congress passed acts not listed in the constitution. In fact to the contrary I pointed out how they were listed in later clauses of article 1 section 8. The quote my opponent provided for this claim gives no indication that I conceded to that idea. My opponent has conceded that the acts he provided were not examples of social welfare. However as I showed in the last round the powers to pass these acts were provided for in the constitution. My opponent has made a huge leap from war veteran pensions, to feeding the population, since some of them may enlist. One cannot compare veterans’ pensions to food stamps for people who may or may not enlist. Those are two completely different scenarios, dealing with completely different time frames, and completely different people. 4. NH Constitution My opponent has already agreed with my definition of “general welfare” thus there is no point in arguing this further. 5. Capitalization and punctuation My opponent has once again taken a quote out of context, this time from my source. The full quote says “ They also attach special meanings to the ways words may be capitalized or abbreviated in founding documents, such as constitutions or the early writings of the Founders. Such people seem to resist all efforts to explain that such conventions have no legal significance whatsoever, that they are just ways to emphasize certain kinds of type, to make it easier for the reader to scan the documents quickly and organize the contents in his mind.” My source also says “Nonetheless, it is obvious that for hundreds of years, styles of cases and other legal materials were frequently capitalized for purposes of emphasis. The custom of capitalized styles of cases continues even today.” If you look at Amendment 6, there is very little capitalization. If my opponent was correct, there would be more capitalization in this paragraph; “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The only words capitalized are “In”, which started a sentence, “Assistance” which was near the end of the paragraph, and “Counsel” which again was at the end of the paragraph. 6. Burden of proof and summary My opponent has claimed that I have the burden of proof because I quote “ advocate the change from the status quo. “ This is false. My opponent is the one making the statement, thus he has the burden of proof. Furthermore I am not advocating any changes to the status quo, and that statement was unsupported by any argument or proof of the status quo. 7. Appropriation of Money and Executive Agencies Appropriation is a law passed by congress authorizing the Executive to draw money from the treasury. In order for congress to appropriate money, the executive agency must already be established. This means before the appropriation bill is drawn, congress must have already passed an enabling act establishing the agency to begin with. Congress may only create agencies that are constitutional. So for Congress to appropriate money, the agency must be authorized elsewhere in the constitution. Conclusion The constitution does not grant congress the power of social welfare. It does grant congress the power to appropriate money for general legislation, but that legislation must first be constitutional. The so called “general welfare clause” is a qualification of the power to appropriate money, and not a general grant of power. Works Cited 1. [Online] http://www.usconstitution.net.... 2. [Online] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu....