Reply to a critic of the tea party movement

I do not speak for the "tea party movement" or for "conservatives". No one does. However, to the extent such folks take their guidance from me on interpretation of the Constitution, I can respond on the points of what is and is not constitutional.

Before one can have an intelligent discussion on this topic, we need to establish some ground rules. We are talking about law, not policy. The Constitution is the Supreme Law, not the Supreme Suggestion, or some kind of policy guide, to be compromised like any other. Law is a command. It must be obeyed, or else suffer the consequences. It is binary. Either something is lawful or it is not. There are no degrees of lawfulness. No gray areas. An official has the authority to do something or he does not. A violator of a law is guilty or not guilty. Nothing in between.

Further, official power does not come from need. It comes from a delegation of authority from someone having the power to do so. The Universe may end without the exercise of a power, but that does not confer the slightest iota of authority, unless there is a prior delegation of authority to act if a need arises. There is a logical fallacy that covers this: Necesse ergo praesto. I have the need to do it, therefore I have the (legal) authority to do it. No you don't. If you act without authority to save the world, history may praise you, but it may still be lawful and dutiful to prosecute and execute you for it. After you are dead you will get a statue in your honor. That is the way law works, and is supposed to work.

Now to the points made about various popular services performed by government. The ones cited are minor services that are not really significant issues on the general theme of the exercise of unconstitutional powers. It is not unconstitutional for the federal government to inspect food sold across a state border (but not within a state border). It is not unconstitutional to administer national parks, museums, or the like.

Without going into detail, here are a few unconstitutional activities of the federal government:

1. Income tax on compensation for labor
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. Unemployment
6. Welfare
7. Public housing
8. Public education except for militia training
9. Veteran health care except for service-connected maladies
10. Every war not declared by Congress (the president and those under his command are pirates in constitutional terms)
11. All criminal prosecutions for acts committed on state territory for other than treason, counterfeiting, piracy and felony on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, violations of military discipline, enslavement, violation of rights by a state agent, or deprivation of the privilege of voting on grounds of race, gender, age 18 or over, failure to pay a tax, etc.
12. Courts giving more weight to precedent than to the Constitution itself
13. The de facto delegation of lawmaking authority to an army of bureaucrats
14. Denial of legal redress on many issues
15. Government mandated health insurance
16. Bailouts, especially that don't solve the problems created by the major financial institutions
    

I could go on and on, but I have a website for that.

The Taxing Clause authorizes taxing and spending only for the exercise of the specifically delegated powers. The phrase "general welfare" is not the delegation of a power, but additional restriction of the power in ways that do not burden or benefit one state, section, or faction over others. It is equivalent to an equal protection clause.

But to understand that you have to learn to read the language in which the Constitution is written, which is not the same language used today.