I would say that when you need to take that many steps to justify spending under a document that is meant to define a limited Federal power (the Constitution) then you need an Amendment. That is not the way we’ve operated for approximately a hundred years, we’ve ignored reasonableness in our reading of the Constitution, and ignored the Amendment process when we wanted to expand the Federal government. But look at the bloated monstrosity of a government it has given us and ask yourself if you want to continue the tradition of sophistry in Constitutional reasoning.
I oppose L.Ron Paul because I oppose sophistry in constitutional reasoning.
Reason would dictate that there is no need for a constitutional amendment authorizing an Air Force, which is so clearly necessary to national defense.
One the one hand I have luantics arguing that the Constitution is a "living document" and on the other I have lunatics arguing that the Constitution is a museum piece.
What's next? An argument that it is unconstitutional to outfit the Postal Service with trucks because the internal combustion engine - like airplanes - did not exist in 1787?
But look at the bloated monstrosity of a government it has given us and ask yourself if you want to continue the tradition of sophistry in Constitutional reasoning.
It is not an either/or.
There is a rational middle way between Lysander Spooner and John Conyers.