Stating it as this reporter does just illustrates his colossal ignorance.  The General Welfare clause gives no spending authority at all, but is a limit on spending authority.

Let me start by telling you where the spending authority of Congress does come from.  In article 1 section 8 of the Constitution there are several powers that are given to congress.  Within each of those powers there is an implied power to spend.  In other words, Congress is given the power to raise an army, this implies the power to pay the troops and buy weapons.  For each listed power the congress as authorization to spend and carry out those functions.

Now lets look at the General Welfare clause, “The congress is authorized to raise taxes, to spend on the common defense and the general welfare.”  What the framers are saying here is that the money they spend has to be spent on the whole of the U.S.  That is to say they cannot build postal roads only in Massachusetts (to the detriment of Georgia).  So any monies they spend must be on the whole, not just one part.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE

I had a chance to chat with a scholar close to TAC this week and I asked him about conflicts between Article I sec. 8 and how it relates to the 10th Amendment and got a bit of insight.  What I learned is that because the 10th came later than Article I section 8, because it amended article I and the entire preceding constitution in fact, that the 10th supercedes Article 1 sec 8 in any interpretational conflict.

When you find a debater who wants to take on the 10th amendment movement, try using this key fact to immediately shoot down the general welfare clause (Article I, section as an argument for centralization.

It seems that the founders felt strongly when creating the bill of rights that it should be the final safeguard, limiting the Federal Government’s scope and power.

Beware the centralizers in corporate media and their tactics of misinformation, which they condemned just a few years back.  Stand up to interpretations of the constitution that are bent to facilitate the growth of Federal power and let them know that this time, the people are not engaged in partisan business as usual.

Clearly Dave is mis-informed.  Or, he’s a straight-faced liar.  Either way, as far as Constitutional understanding goes, this guy is as clueless – and dangerous – as it gets.

Here’s some introductory reading on the subject:

Is Obamacare Constitutional?

The Original Meaning of an Omission

And a podcast too:

A Constitutional Coup d’etat