Our Unconstitutional Congress by Stephen Moore - Essay Example

"Our Unconstitutional Congress - Congress spending money on programs not d in the Constitution" is an article by Stephen Moore that criticizes the way Congress appropriates federal funds. His main point is that, though the Constitution empowered Congress to allocate or spend government funds, these powers are only limited and is very specific. And at present, the way Congress spends federal funds, it is going beyond the powers that the Constitution vested it. In the article of Moore, he claimed that in the earlier days, the federal government only had limited funds and only a number of things to spend on. Today however, federal budget amounts to billions of dollars and it subsidizes on almost everything that you can think of claiming that it is for the 'general welfare.' According to Moore, this phenomenon is a result of the following incidents: first, when the income tax was enacted, this enabled the federal government to amass wealth. Second, national crisis brought about by wars gave Congress the reason to push constitutional limits in favor of releasing more money for the benefit of the citizenry. Third, the Supreme Court passed a decision declaring that the power of Congress in allocating federal funds for public purpose is not limited by the powers granted by the Constitution. All these led to the over-extension of the general welfare clause - Congress can just allot on anything as long as it alleges that it is for the 'general welfare'. Moore also presented certain political analysts stating that a significant amount of the federal funds have been on charity. However, no matter how good the government's intentions are, apportionment for public charity has no constitutional basis. There is no constitutional provision authorizing such allotment. The article of Moore thus presents the following problems. Is Moore right when he concluded that Congress is spending beyond its' constitutional powers If indeed Congress is spending beyond what it is authorized by the constitution to spend, is Congress justified in allocating federal funds to public charity as an exception In a republic like ours, the source of power of the government comes from the people. They agree to submit and be governed and administered by a single body. (Hamilton) This can be seen in the third paragraph of The Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" (1776) The people's consent to submit to a single government is embodied in a document called The Constitution. There, the people would specify the power it vests in the government and its various departments. Without a power being expressly granted to the government or any of its department in the Constitution, then such government or department does not have it. Now the Constitution provided for different departments in government: the legislative, executive and the judiciary. The legislative department makes the laws, the executive department executes it and the judiciary implements it. This division is designed to prevent the concentration of power in one person. It also provided for checks and balances in government. (Devine, 2004) This way, no one person or department controls the entire government. This is an effective way to ensure that the rights of the people are protected. Now the power of the legislative is specifically stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. And I must admit that there is no provision for public charity. The only provision that Congress could use to justify allocations for public charity is in Section 8 #1 which grants them the power to levy taxes "for the general welfare of the United States." On the other hand, Section 9 of the same Article provides the limitations and prohibitions with respect to the powers of Congress. And there is no prohibition against allocations for public charity. Since there is no prohibition against it, can we safely say that Congress is constitutionally authorized to allocate for public charity In my opinion, the answer is no. I believe that there is no express grant in the Constitution for public charity. Likewise, I also believe that public charity do not fall under the general welfare clause. The clause reads: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" (Emphasis supplied) I believe that the 'general welfare' stated should be taken with common defense. 'General welfare' refers more on establishing national security against threats outside American borders. It talks about the welfare of the United States as a country. For me, it does not talk about the welfare of the individual citizens. It does not talk about promoting the individual citizen's way of living. Now, it has been stated in Moore's article that the Supreme Court ruled that the power of Congress in allocating federal funds for public purpose is not limited by the powers granted by the Constitution. I disagree. Amendment X states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People. Thus, this implies that the federal government does not have inherent powers. If any government has inherent power, it is the government of different states comprising the United States. However, although I believe that there is no express grant of power to Congress to allocate for Public Charity, I believe that such should still be allowed. I agree with Thomas West in his article that although our government is a limited government, this does not mean that they would also have a limited role in the improving the lives of men. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all humans have the right to realization, a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being, a right to education and the full development of his personality (1848). It is the responsibility of the government to promote these rights. As such, I believe this is this is the justification of Congress in its allocation for public charity. Bibliography Devine, D. J. (2004) In Defense of the West. Maryland: University Press of America, Inc. Hamilton, J., Madison, J., Jay, J. (1788) from The Federalist Papers. Western Vision and American Values, pp 223-235. USA: Belleview University Moore, S. (1999) Our Unconstitutional Congress - Congress spending money on programs not stated in the Constitution. USA Today(Society for the Advancement of Education) Retrieved on 16 April 2008 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2644_127/ai_53630951/pg_1. The Bill of Rights. (1791) Western Vision and American Values. pp 244-245. USA: Belleview University The Constitution of the United States of America (1787) Western Vision and American Values, pp 236-243. USA: Belleview University The Declaration of Independence (1776) Western Vision and American Values, pp 220-222. USA: Belleview University The United Nations (1948) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Western Vision and American Values, pp344-346. USA: Belleview University West, T.G. (2001) The Founders' Embrace of Both Rights and Duties. Western Vision and American Values, pp592-597. USA: Belleview University White, E.B. (1943) Democracy. Western Vision and American Values, p368. USA: Belleview University Read More