"The Buffet Rule" Should be Implemented by the Federal Government

My opponent begins his argument citing my note that he left out a piece of Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. Granting that I have made no mischaracterizations of it he goes on to note that my interpretation seems to be wrong. Yet I believe my opponent missed that the important points I was trying to make were about the general welfare clause. I was making no comments about taxation and its uniformity. Nor does my argument rely on it in any way. However were HD to turn back few pages on in Story’s book he would find that he does in fact agree with my interpretation of the General Welfare clause as not granting any power to Congress accept for those specifically enumerated within the clause.http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...“§906. The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers. This is apparent, as will be presently seen, from the history of the proceedings of the convention, which framed it; and it has formed the admitted basis of all legislative and judicial reasoning upon it, ever since it was put into operation, by all, who have been its open friends and advocates, as well as by all, who have been its enemies and opponents. If the clause, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for the common defense or general welfare. Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government. The enumerated powers would tend to embarrassment and confusion; since they would only give rise to doubts, as to the true extent of the general power, or of the enumerated powers.” My adding of that phrase was not intended to highlight the words in it, but to place the general welfare clause in context. The sentence structure and preceding statements which Madison points out in Federalist Papers 41 are also of importance here."But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.”Also important as Story points out is the fact that the framers went through so much trouble to enumerate the 18 powers given to congress. This beggs the question, if the framers meant what HD seems to think they meant by the general welfare clause then why did they go through the trouble of enumerating the powers of it….why didn’t they just stop at general welfare like HD stopped? If they intended for powers to just be granted to Congress all “willie nillie” why create Article V as a way to amend those powers and grant new ones?Let it be stated that it is completely irrelevant that the Supreme Court or congress has done and continue to do things outside of the Constitution. The question and the point of the debate is should they. It is my contention that even if unconstitutional things have been done in the past and continue to be done today, that does not mean the gov’t should continue to do so, or be allowed to do so again. Doing so is what has gotten us into this debt mess in the first place. Even if HD can advance an argument that shows the Gov’t should in fact take part in these programs, the Buffett Rule still shouldn’t be enacted for HD’s suggested purposes without first crating a Constitutional amendment that allows the gov’t to have these powers in the first place. HD comments on my statement that: “if the framers had intended for federal gov’t to be involved in social security, welfare, schools and the like, they would have added it into the Constitution.” To this HD replies: “This would only be true if the Framers had intended the Constitution and by extension the Federal Government to remain static and for no new departments to be created. This is shown not to be the case by the fact that Congress added the Department of the Navy (later merged with the Department of Defense) towards the middle of George Washington's second term, and it was John Adams that appointed the first Secretary to that department. Why did the Framers agree to this if they felt it was not something that was supposed to occur?” Yes HD, you are right, the framers intended for the gov’t to be malleable and expected it to change over time, so they created a process for that. It’s outlined in Article V of the Constitution. As far as the department of the navy is concerned, the Constitutional authority for it is enumerated in the Constitution under Article 1 Section 8 #13 “To provide and maintain a Navy”.So while my opponent is correct when he stated “while the Framers did not intend for a Department of Agriculture to exist, they did not intend for one NOT to exist either. They left that option, or at least the option to create a new department, up to future leaders and generations.” He overlooks the fact that power for those departments must first be granted by the Constitution. HD seems to be ok with gov’t completely circumventing the Constitution to create such departments. I would understand his argument if there was a power laid in the constitution that said something similar to the navy’s provision about agriculture, like “to provide and maintain the nation’s agriculture” or something like that, but there is not. So it will remain unconstitutional until it is ammended to make it Constitutional. I must ask my opponent; if “What it [gov’t] does do is provide for the general welfare, as in the action it takes is intended to have a positive benefit on the society as a whole.” What limit does the gov’t have in benefiting the society as a whole? Where does this power stop? It clearly does not stop in your opinion with the enumerated powers in the Constitution, so what power stops the gov’t from mandating, exercise, eating vegetables or whatever it pleases at the time for the good of the society as a whole? I believe his idea is flawed, Govt’s function is not to take actions that have a "positive benefit on society", Govt’s job is to protect our individual rights from those who would take them away and the Constitution was created to make sure the gov’t was limited to doing just that.HD has been unsuccessful in showing that the general welfare clause grants the gov’t the power to use the money generated by the Buffett Rule in order to fund his suggestions. Second he has not shown how the money generated can in any way significantly reduce our debt or deficit. In order for HD’s contention that the Buffett Rule Should be past to stand, he must prove one of those things if it does neither then it should not be passed.