Defense: as I said, defense savings will happen as a result of returning from war.
Israel: Chuck Baldwin, the most recent Constitution Party candidate, is a premillennialist, and they are notoriously pro-Israel. Not being burdened by foreign entanglements is a worthy goal, and it does not mean one does not recognize one’s allies.
Social Security: Article I, Section 8: “Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; “
Social Security is not against the Constitution, it is simply a poor way to accomplish the goal of providing for the elderly. It is a uniform tax, uniformly applied, and it is designed to provide relief for the elderly. That is not contra-Constitution.
I would add this portion of the 14th amendment: “Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law...shall not be questioned. “
Respectfully, your construction is as loosey-goosey as the construction of the Democrats and the Republicans, which is what got us where we are now.
It is not uniform, which means it doesn’t fit the constitutional template for taxation. Which also means it is in no way the “general welfare” either.
As regards Baldwin and the CP you are at the least naive vis a vis Israel and their foreign policy views.
"The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."-- James Madison
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider… [Otherwise], would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power do to whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."-- Thomas Jefferson, 1791
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."-- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution
Can you show us any real difference between your construction of the constitutional taxing authority vis a vis Social Security and John Roberts’ construction of the constitutional authority of Congress in the Obamacare case?
Is your construction vis a vis the “general welfare” clause in line with the views of the framers, or in line with the modern understanding of our political and legal elites? It cannot be both.