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

I shall first lay out three distinct points in support of my side of the case. I will attempt to be simple and concise in my arguments. A quick note: Pro has the exclusive BOP in this round. All I must do is cast doubt upon his claims, and I shall win the debate. I. The Constitution explicitly allows for help to the poor and needy. I generally dislike semantic arguments, but, based on the resolution provided, I have to give one here. My opponent's resolution is, "The United States does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy. " My opponent also defines social welfare. However, he never explicitly connects the two together. Thus, I simply have to negate the actual resolution. With this in mind, the Constitution obviously provides for powers that help the poor and needy, including coining money, providing post roads and offices, and raising an army, among other provisions deliberately noted in Article I, Section 8. These help the poor and needy because they help everyone. Coinage helps to facilitate trade and economic growth, post offices and roads allow for quicker and more accessible communication for all, and national defense helps everyone retain their rights and physical safety. Thus, in this sense, the Constitution allows for help to the poor and needy because the Constitution has provisions that help everyone. II. The Circumstances behind the Constitution necessitate a more flexible interpretative approach. Remember that the Constitution was created to replace the Articles of Confederation, which was inadequate because it lacked any effective method of governance [1]. What this means is that the Constitution necessarily empowers the federal government, often in ways that are implied, rather than explicitly noted. Remember, it is literally impossible for the writers of the Constitution to imagine any possible scenario the government could require power in. This means that, with the background of the Constitution in mind, we should default to flexibility. What really seems to be the case is that my opponent has a dislike for implied powers, since he does not find that the federal government has the power to spend as it pleases, via the power of the purse. If this is the case, then my opponent should surely find the printing of paper money unconstitutional, since it is not explicitly provided for [1]. III. The Constitution actually does provide for welfare programs. What we must live with is the fact that the "general welfare" provision in Article I, Section 8 is ambiguous. I will submit that, at the time of the drafting and the ratification of the Constitution, that my viewpoint was at least represented. This means that there exists at least one viable path for general welfare to include welfare programs. Let's note the text in question: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. " - Article I, Section 8However, several other provisions are necessary here: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. " - Article I, Section 9"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "These two clauses permit the "power of the purse," that is, the ability to spend, provided the money is explicitly designated in law, and allow for the passage of any laws that are necessary for the government to conduct its abilities. What we must note is that the first implies that Congress can spend as it pleases, provided the money is appropriated in an explicit manner. More importantly, the necessary and proper clause, writes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 44, is created so as to give the government more powers than explicitly enumerated. He claims that a full enumeration would have been impossible [1]. This means that, should the government require government programs, such as tax breaks and subsidies, to fulfill some purpose, perhaps interstate commerce, the intent was to allow this. However, we must come back to the phrase "general welfare. " Well, consensus was not present with regards to this. Alexander Hamilton writes that, "The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. [3]. This substantiates what should be common sense; if the framers had intended general welfare to simply relate to the enumerated powers, then putting general welfare in the Constitution in the first place would have been redundant. Rebuttals"Anything outside of these limited powers is put under the 10th Amendment. .. "This is not the case. Here, Pro is ignoring both 1) implied powers, and 2) the necessary and proper clause, both of which give the government the required flexibility, since it would have been impossible to enumerate every single power the government could possibly have, as noted by Hamilton. Remember, if Pro really wants strict construction, then he must defend that paper money is illegal, since Article I, Section 8 only allows for "coin money," and Section 10 commands that "make anything but gold and silver legal tender in the payment of debts. ""Congress provides for the 'common defense' by. .. raise and maintain an army. .. and. .. navy. "What about the Air Force? "Congress provides for "the general welfare. .. "To dispute on face, does it not seem redundant to explicitly note "general welfare," but really just mean other provisions listed elsewhere? Alexander Hamilton, as mentioned earlier, noted as much. "Make rules for. .. bankruptcies. "Excuse me, but a bankruptcy helps the poor and needy by allowing for the liquidation of debt for those who cannot pay [4]. This is an example of explicitly helping the poor and needy. "lay and collect taxes. .. "Since tax breaks and Social Security are within the realm of taxes, and are methods of government welfare programs, it appears that the Constitution allows for such programs [5]. The opinions of random framers. .. Yes, some framers preferred a strict view. Yet, others, like Hamilton, preferred a broader view. This means that, at the minimum, legitimate debate existed, and that Pro cannot meet his BOP. Sources:1. . http://www.policyalmanac.org...2. . http://www.constitution.org...3. . http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...4. . http://www.uscourts.gov...5. . http://www.washingtonpost.com...*All Constitution references from:. http://www.law.cornell.edu...