The Constitution gives congress the the power of social welfare

1. No Restriction CitedMy opponent seems to think that because I did not cite a specific restriction, that I cannot, or will not mention one over the course of this debate, as part of a rebuttal.2. Welfare clause grants plenary spending powerMy opponent has dropped my argument about the general welfare clause being a qualification of the power to collect revenue, rather than a separate general grant of power. Again, if it was a grant of power, than like “common Defense”, it would be listed more specifically in later clauses of article 1 section 8. This was not the case, because it was a qualification of the taxing payer, meaning that the government may only collect a revenue to provide for “the common Defense” aka military, and “general Welfare” aka legislation not dealing with the military. This can be seen with in another clause where is reads “[Congress shall have the power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”, here it again insists that congress has a limitation on their ability to collect a revenue, and that limitation is to fund the immediate “common Defense and general Welfare”. Furthermore the clauses in article 1 section 8 typically ended with a semicolon, not a comma.3. The founders agreed the spending clause was broadMy opponent has chopped up a quote by Hamilton, in an attempt to misrepresent his beliefs regarding “general Welfare” “A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." (1)In other words Hamilton believed that “the common defence and general welfare” were qualifications of the appropriation of taxes, but he believed that the term “general welfare” was broad, and thus so too was the qualification. Madison, the primary author of the constitution, on the other hand held a more limited view on the power to appropriate taxes, and believed certain things could not be funded by the tax payer. Appropriation just means drawing money from the treasury. In Hamilton’s view the clause gave congress the power to draw money from the treasury for military matters, but the later clauses established what congress’s powers regarding the military were. So too does this apply to general welfare.My opponent has cited several acts of congress that does not redistribute wealth, as in the agreed upon definition of social welfare.The 1st was establishing lighthouses. Lighthouses are necessary for international trade, as ships carrying imports could easily crash into rocky cliffs, thus the necessary and proper clause applies. Lighthouses are not social welfare.The second was pensions for revolutionary war veterans, which falls under the “common Defense” category. (2) Soldier pensions are not a form of social welfare.4. Capitalization and punctuationPro made the claim that I did not explain why the capitalization and lack of capitalization was important. I thought I made it clear that the founders capitalized words they wished to emphasize, just like how we use colored or bolded font today. Back in the days of quill pens, when a speech was written, one would capitalize the first letter of words they wish to emphasize or highlight. (3)Again look at all the words they chose to capitalized “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”If it was short hand, as pro claims, than “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, “ and “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” would not be separate clauses, as pro has been suggesting. You can’t claim that the reason “to” in “to pay the Debts” is not capitalized because they wrote it as “Excises, to pay the Debts”, yet also claim “Excises” and “to pay the Debts” are in different clauses.Freehand explains some of the capitalizations, but most in that clause are from emphasis.For example“The Congress shall have the Power…”“To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, and to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...” Notice how “Defence” is capitalized but common is not, and “Welfare” is capitalized but “general” is not. It’s because they were emphasizing that the purpose of appropriation of money is “Military” and “Prosperity”, and the words “common” and “general” are simply used to denote a common benefit of the whole community. Once again, clauses were separated by semicolons in article 1 section 8.You have yet to prove that the term “general Welfare” is not a qualification of the appropriation of taxes. You also have yet to site where in the constitution it grants them a specific power of social welfare.Works Cited1. [Online] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu....2. [Online] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com....3. [Online] http://home.hiwaay.net....