The recent bill Trump had signed that gave the citizens the $600 stimulus was saddled with ridiculous pork. Does anyone question how they can spend money on "Gender Studies in Pakistan"? The answer is, Constitutionally, they can't. How about all the foreign aid? Again, this is highly questionable Constitutionally.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to spend in two areas, and two areas only - the general welfare and the common defense. That is it.
Now, the general welfare law has gone through much interpretation through the years (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/755) but the core of it remains the same - Congress generally can only spend on the general welfare.
The thing is, things like "Gender Studies in Pakistan" would not hold up as spending allowed by Congress under previous court interpretations. Congress literally violates the Constitution at ever turn with their pork laden projects.
The Founding Fathers wanted to limit Congress spending power, but they left the "general welfare" clause open to a lot of interpretation by Congress. However, Congress has been challenged in court before.
Basically, people should be seething that Congress has reached a point they feel they can spend money on whatever they want when the Constitution specifically limits spending to two areas.
This is why we need term limits, amongst other things.
it's not the politicians who write those bills. they don't even read them.
Who write them???
Lobbyists.
There was a time when our Congress refused to give charitable funds to DC orphans after an orphanage burned to the ground. Because they didn’t have authority. And they feared setting a precedent that would encourage never-ending and ever-increasing grandstanding. We just sent 3 trillion dollars to Afghanistan so Muslims can learn that men can menstruate.
This is an argument I always bring up... “where in the constitution does it grant the federal government to do xyz”. Most people don’t care. But the point is, how is congress always allowed to do things, spend money on things, that’s clearly unconstitutional?
Yes they stretched words like "general welfare" like a latex balloon. Back in those days, the phrase was understood as "something that equally helps EVERYONE. So for example, "corn subsidies" obviously help farmers more than iron workers--- so it's NOT in the 'general welfare.' But today they stretch the argument: "Well, we all need food, so corn subsidies are in the general welfare." Apply this everywhere. Welfare helps welfare queens, education spending helps parents more than non-parents, on and on and on. All of this spending is special interest and by definition not in the 'GENERAL' welfare.
Yeah, and they only regulate interstate commerce, too. That's been stretched to the moon and back 12 times already.
It blew my mind when I found that out, thanks to Tom Woods - that the vast majority of Federal govt spending is undoubtedly unconstitutional. Amazing.
Why can't we sue them?