First, I am not your son. Second, you obviously have not read any Supreme Court decisions prior to the mid 1930s. Third, being from New York I can understand why you know nothing about the constitution.Finally, because the necessary and proper clause, not to mention the commerce clause, have been misinterpreted by recent courts, doesn't mean the post 1930s interpretation is correct.
I could care less that you're admitted to a bar. Let me know when you've been admitted to the USSC bar---and argued a case before it. We'll compare notes.
You are colossaly wrong if you think that stuff like a department of education is somehow 'unconstitutional.'
I agree with you regarding the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause, but that's not to say that the US Goverment is somehow automatically acting 'unconstitutionally' when they act beyond the mandate set by the USC.
It's you who clearly don't 'get it,' and I don't doubt that you are unwilling (or unable) to recognize the clear difference between acting contrary to the rules in the USC, and acting outside of them.
If you insist on clinging to 80 year old outdated precedent, well, that speaks volumes for you, I suppose. If you have any legal clients, I hope you let them know that you personally and willingly honor bad law. I am sure they would love to hear that one!