Back when politicians cared about the Constitution…

@Xrlq… welcome to Threedonia! The limitation is that if the power is not enumerated in the Const. then the Gov’t can not do it.

I know. The problem is that the plenary power to tax and spend “for the general welfare” is enumerated in the Constitution, along side the commerce clause, the war power and everything else. Therefore, unless a federal expenditure violates a specific prohibition of the Constitution, the government can do it because the tax and spend clause says it can. Jake’s response said it all: even when the Democrats get it right, they still get it wrong. One exception to that rule: the fact that the tax and spend power was written so broadly in the first place is largely the fault of the Federalist Party, not the Democrats who rightly opposed it. That may be the exception that proves the rule, though, as the official name of the Democratic Party back then was “Democratic-Republicans,” and they were known informally as Republicans, not as “Democrats.” It kinda fits that the last time the Democrats were truly on the right side of the federalism issue was when they were called Republicans!

Oh, yeah, and “I was spanked by Grover Cleveland on two non-consecutive occasions.”

I understand all that Philip… I’m sure I’m not the first to point out that just because SCOTUS says something doesn’t make it right — it only makes it legal. President Cleveland was correct on the principle and the law at the time. Since when does going back to something that was right have to be “impractical”? “We know it’s not right nor workable, but what the hell” isn’t very practical. The idea of taking other people’s money to help someone else is against our Founding principles. So the law is on the side of the enforced government welfare state, but principle is on the side of those who would favor private individual charity — and principle will always win out in the end.

That’s why the culture battle is so important. It would change the politics if people took more responsibility for their welfare, health care, self-defense, etc. and would return us to real prosperity as opposed to debt-fueled faux prosperity. Obviously, since you look back to SCOTUS precedent so you see some usefulness of the past as it informs the present. My precedents go further back than the New Deal.

It’s past time to drop the “good old days” schtick and come up with practical approaches, i.e., politically viable approaches, to the actual situation.