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

Thank you, Con. To start with, concerning the BOP (Burden of Proof), this is my first, formal debate with someone, so my apologies for being a bit inexperienced, to put it simply. I shall give a rebuttal of Con's claims (though I admit that I do agree with some of them) and clarify some things that should have been done in the beginning. As I said, this is my first formal debate, so once again, my apologies for not being 100% prepared, even though I should have been. I would also like to note that one of the sources I am using is a Kindle book accessed via my iPad's Kindle app. Due to the lack of page numbers, the "location" numbers shall be referenced instead. The location numbers are out of a grand total of 6,700. My opponent states that "the Constitution explicitly allows for help to the poor and needy". Indeed, I do define social welfare as "A governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need. This can come into the form of Bail Outs, Food Stamps, Federal Unemployment Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc." Also true, I did not explicitly connect the two together, though that was my intention. It is true that coining money, providing post roads and offices, and raising an army, among other provisions mentioned in Article I, Section 8 do help the poor and needy and everyone on Con states, an I am in full agreement of his statement for this part of the debate. A minor thing I would like to note about is the use of the term "post roads". As Robert Natelson, a distinguished and one of my favorite originalist constitutional scholars explains, "The eighteenth-century term "post road" did not include every path over which the mail might travel. The meaning was more specific then that. A "post road" was a major throughfare built for speedy travel between distinct localities, distinguished from lesser highways in which it featured stations (called "posts" or "stages") for hiring and changing horses." [1] My opponent states that "the Constitution actually does provide for welfare programs". Is is true that my opponent's viewpoint was at least represented, though it was a minority view only held by at least two people (as far as I know), Alexander Hamilton, and Justice Joseph Story, though I want my focus to be on Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist, one of the main authors of the Federalist Papers, and one of the few (if not the only) big government type founders. He probably was a secret monarchist as he posted about the pros of the English system, [2] The Constitution does say that "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.", but it simply means that Congress has to pass a bill in order to appropriate this money in order for the government to conduct its abilities. Think of it as a budget, per say. That being said, this clause doesn't explain how the government provides for welfare programs. Neither does the necessary and proper clause. According to Robert Natelson, "During the Founding Era (as today), the doctrine of incidental powers (a.k.a. implied powers) gave an agent some discretion in how he carried out his duties. However, this discretion was limited in three important ways. First, the agent could only act for the purpose of carrying out the principle powers. [...] Second, [...] Third, incidental powers never included authority as important as the listed powers." [3] Now, to answer my opponents rebuttals. Unfortunately, due to the limited charter count, I cannot respond to all of them. "What about the Air Force?" The United States Air Force has existed through various entities since 1907 (starting with the Aeronautical Division of the Army Signal Corps) [4] and only became a separate entity in 1947. Although the Constitution does not explicitly state that Congress shall have the power to provide for and maintain an Air Force, the technology just wasn't there at the time. From what I see, there are two ways that the Air Force could be constitutional. First, a Constitutional Amendment providing for an Air Force, or second, abolishing the Department of the Air Force and replacing it with the Navy, Marines, and Army having their own specialized Air Forces for their own unique needs. Douglas MacArthur, then-General at the time, stated in 1931 that "The Naval Air Force will be based on the fleet and move with it as an important element in solving the primary missions confronting the fleet. The Army Air Forces will be land-based and employed as an essential element to the Army in the performance of its mission to defend the coasts at home and in our overseas possessions, thus assuring the fleet absolute freedom of action without any responsibility for coast defense." [5] "Since tax breaks and Social Security are within the realm of taxes, and are methods of government welfare programs" I rebutted that latter half above earlier in my post. As far as tax breaks go, yes, I do believe that tax breaks are constitutional using the doctrine of limited implied powers. Social Security, on the other hand, while it is a tax, the Constitution does not express power for a program like Social Security. While the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness of Social Security is for another debate, Social Security is not a constitutional tax. Though Congress has the power to collect taxes, it only does so for "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States", that is those powers that are enumerated to Congress. "Yes, some framers preferred a strict view. Yet, others, like Hamilton, preferred a broader view." True, there was, at minimum, a legitimate debate on the subject. But, as I have stated earlier, Hamilton's view was in the extreme minority of his time. During the founding Era, it was the 28 year long (1801-1829) Anti-Federalist presidential administrations (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams) that prevailed against the 4 year (1797-1801) presidency of John Adams [6] (12 if you count the No Party President George Washington who, at times, had Federalist leanings). Unfortunately, due to the lack of time that I have, I wasn't able to complete my side of the debate as I had intended. Sources: [1]: The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant by Robert Natelson, Location 1742 [2]: James Madison's Constitutional Convention Notes, June 18th, 1787 [3]: The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant by Robert Natelson, Location 1444 [4]: http://www.airforce.com... [5]: The Army and its Air Corps: Army Policy Toward Aviation 1919"1941 by Dr. James P. Tate, Page 78. [6]: http://americanhistory.about.com... All Constitution References From: http://www.archives.gov...