Federal Programs are Unconstitutional

I will be arguing against the resolution, "Federal programs are unconstitutional." The topic, as I see it, refers to federal programs in general, weighing the relevance of them and whether they are unconstitutional or not. Allow me to start with an analogy. Let's say you're trying to find a new home to call your own. You have been looking at many homes and apartments, and finally you come across an apartment you really like, complete with a bathroom, living room, separate kitchen and dining area and two bedrooms. It's affordable, roomy and comfortable. But it's not perfect, and needs some revisions in order to be the home you want to live in. You add new furniture and appliances, re-do the floors, add a fresh coat of paint and repair the windows. All of these things make you more comfortable and as a result, you are more happy with the apartment than you were before. The Constitution is, in many ways, like the Constitution; it's simply meant to be a start of a government, like an apartment is a start for a place to you to live. The Constitution must have revisions and items added on top of it, in order for the country to run successfully; this is why we have amendments added to the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to be a foundation for our government, and not a sole restriction. Let us first start with the purpose of federal programs--to serve and assist the people of the United States. The reason why we have programs and organizations such as Social Security is to assist and help the people as a whole. In the very Preamble of the Constitution [1], are the words, "We the People, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This preamble discusses the purpose of the United States government; to serve its people, ensure their security and secure their rights. The federal programs that this government has provided in its two-hundred year history have done that and have the purpose of doing what the Preamble says. The Constitution is essentially mandating that the government assist its citizens, and federal programs have that purpose and goal in mind. Looking through the body text of the Constitution, there are several things to note that point to the Founding Fathers wanting the Constitution to be a foundation on which the US government could be built. Most notable is Article Five [2], which shows the process to which the Constitution can be amended. If the Founding Fathers really wanted to have strict control on the government as my opponent has specified, and that the Framers intended for the documents to be out of discussion, it seems odd that they would include this Article. The Framers wanted the Constitution to be the grounds for which an expansive government, serving the people and their interests, could be made and constructed. Otherwise, they would not have included this article. And let's think more about this amendment process. Look at the original Constitution. In the original Constitution, you see no mention of equal rights to enslaved Africans or women. A great portion of the population had few rights compared to the other portion. The Founding Fathers never thought we would have a four-year civil war over slavery or that women would march in the streets for their rights to vote and their rights to be fair under the law. Their society, their time, just didn't allow for that open, humanistic kind of thinking. But, in case society changed its way, they included Article Five, so the Constitution could change and be a foundation for which the government should function properly. And now, here we are, a fairly equal society, where women can vote and African-Americans free from the shackles of slavery. In essence, the federal programs that we have today are simply the by-products of Article Five and the Preamble, which allow for a government to serve the people and a legal and governmental way to grow and expand upon the documents at hand. The federal programs are not unconstitutional because the Constitution was never meant to be the only thing the government should function on. The Founding Fathers intended for the government to expand and grow fully to serve the interests of the common people. The political talking points that we have today, such as gun control and Social Security, come from a society two-hundred years removed from the Framers, from a document that the Framers intended to be expanded and to grow. They would have never dreamed of the world we have today. Limiting a modern world to a way of life two hundred years ago is completely illogical. As long as we serve the people to the best and fullest of our ability, we serve the Constitution, and as long as we allow ourselves to expand, we can have a government that helps, rather than hinders, growth, and allows for a better union, people and society. Sources: [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://www.archives.gov...