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

This is an easy Con ballot. Here is why:Remember two things (one of which I have explicitly maintained throughout the debate):1) I do not have to defend the constitutionality of every single government action to help the poor and needy. If I have shown that even one is constitutional, the resolution is negated. 2) Pro has the BOP in this round to show, beyond doubt, that the Constitution does not give Congress this power. With this in mind, Pro has actually conceded this debate. I. Enumerated Powers help the poor and needy. Due to my opponent's lack of connection between social welfare programs and helping the poor and needy, I only needed to show that one enumerated power helps the poor and needy. Since these powers help almost everyone, the poor and needy are necessarily helped. Pro concedes as much, saying, "It is true that coining money, providing post roads and offices, and raising an army...do help the poor and needy."I win the round here. Note: I found the information about post roads quite interesting. II. The Context of the Constitution necessitates a flexible approach. Pro never rebuts this portion, meaning this flows through to Con. I win the debate here as well, since I have shown that the purpose of the Constitution was to create a more powerful and flexible federal government, in contrast to the ineffectual one created by the Articles of Confederation. I will, for ease of reading, throw in the argument regarding the viewpoints held by the drafters here. Pro concedes that at least two framers, namely Hamilton, held the view I am advocating. That is all I needed to prove, that legitimate debate existed, meaning that the actual message of the Constitution and the passages in question, are up for debate. I have done this, and win here as well. III. The Constitution Allows (at least some) Social Welfare Programs.All I needed to show was that, in at least one way, the Constitution allows for one of these programs. I have done this. I would like to throw in one of my opponent's rebuttals here, first, to demonstrate how, in a roundabout way, I have one this debate:"There are two ways the Air Force could be constitutional..."I threw this in as a trap. There is a really simple way that the Air Force is constitutional: the Necessary and Proper Clause. Since the Founders could not foresee everything, it was necessary to include a clause that allowed the government to be flexible. The Air Force is justified under the necessary and proper clause, with the context of the common defense clause. What this means is that, like the 'general welfare' clause, the common defense clause is somewhat elastic, and to be executed through the power of the purse and the necessary and proper clause. Pro was never able to resolve this, or the fact that it would be redundant to only mean later mentioned powers. I win here. The other place I clearly win is when my opponent concedes, "I do believe that tax breaks are constitutional using the doctrine of limited implied powers." My opponent directly concedes the debate here, since tax breaks ARE a form of social welfare [see earlier source material], but indirectly concedes that implied powers exist, especially since, in this debate, the idea of limited implicit powers is unclear. ConclusionI have, therefore, won this debate on all three fronts, showing that the Constitution helps the poor and needy, that its context necessitates flexibility, and that at least one social welfare program is constitutional. Even if you, somehow, do not buy that, there is no way that Pro could have met his BOP. I would like to thank Pro for this interesting debate, and sincerely hope he continues on this site, as he is very skilled. Also, floor, I apologize for lack of sources in this round, as I felt none were necessary.