BTW, I notice that you haven’t actually said I’m wrong. You’ve just pointed out how Fedzilla gets away with petty tyranny.
Last I checked according to the constitution, SCOTUS was the final arbiter or how the constitution should be interpreted, not you.
The first congress that included many of the people who helped write the constitution passed legislation helping indians and providing disaster relief.
And SCOTUS has approved social programs in the past. In 1937, SCOTUS ruled against challenges to Social Security. Granted Roosevelt with the backing of Congress was threatening to pack the court with new positions to get his way. But still. That’s now court precedent. Good luck getting it overturned now.
So I get what you are saying, but I’d vote for an amendment to let the Feds provide some safety nets, if SCOTUS hadn’t already determined they could. I rhink safety nets allow for more risk taking and are ultimately good for our economy and nation. And I think we are going to need them if mass labor dislocations occur.
Your argument is a waste of breath because it’s settled law, SCOTUS has ruled, and you don’t have the support to overturn it.