Ah, but there's the rub: our Constitution does convey upon the federal government some unenumerated powers.No, it doesn't. Repeating a false assertion will not make it true, especially since it's already been debunked.
For instance, the power to tax is granted, but left unenumerated are which taxes and excises can be granted. The power to pay debts is granted, but which debts to pay (or not - see Southern debts of 1865) are left unenumerated.
Jumping from a power that can be exercised in one way or another to the particular exercise of that power as a separate power, as if a general power to tax doesn't include the power to impose tarrifs, is rank sophistry. I would be embarrassed to say something that stupid. You seem to have the problem you accuse libertarians of: you want to get in the last word. The problem is that you happen to be wrong, and instead of admitting it with some dignity, you try to drag on a debate which, frankly, I've already won.
Why don't you just admit it doesn't say what you thought it said? Is admitting you were wrong that hard for you?
Likewise, the power to provide for our common defense is left unenumerated. Otherwise today's national missile defense and air force would be unConstitutional.
I already debunked that.
So it follows that the power to provide for our "general welfare" is also an unenumerated power because which programs for our general welfare are likewise unenumerated.
There's no "general welfare power" in the first place, and therefore no choice over how to use that power.
If only there were no such powers, then I might have to agree with you, but that's not the case. The Supreme Court held that slavery was not encroached upon by the general welfare clause due to states rights in Dred Scott. Likewise, it took a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol over state opposition. Of course, gambling was also ruled to be unencroached by the general welfare clause. The Tenth Amendment clearly conveyed the right to secede to states, as well, so one would be hard-pressed to claim that the "general welfare" clause conveyed UNLIMITED power to the federal government. But one can easily see that the general welfare clause conveys some power, contrary to your views...
Let's be honest: you're making a fool of yourself.
If you think there's a "general welfare power", you logically have to agree with xm177e2 in his claim that Congress can do anything it claims is in the general welfare. To say that Congress has the power to do what it thinks is in the general power, but not the power to do a particular thing which it thinks is the general welfare (and not even the ones listed in the Bill of Rights, but ones that have been ruled to be state matters) is simply a contradiction. It doesn't say lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, except as it pertains to slavery, alcohol, gambling, ect. If a "general welfare power" is granted by the strange and awkward construction (if it's intended for that purpose, that is), "lay and collect taxes... to provide for the general welfare", it's the whole thing; general welfare stands without immediate qualification. If it's not granted by that clause, it's not granted at all. "General welfare" grants everything, or nothing. As you yourself have proven, it does not grant everything.
"If you think there's a "general welfare power", you logically have to agree with xm177e2 in his claim that Congress can do anything it claims is in the general welfare. ... If it's not granted by that clause, it's not granted at all. "General welfare" grants everything, or nothing."
Like most Libertarians, you've definitely contracted the all-or-nothing disease. By your logic the "general welfare" clause either has no meaning and can be disregarded as if it was never written into our Constitution, or else it has unlimited meaning and invalidates the rest of the Constitution.
I refer you to post #377, which dissects the general welfare clause reasonably well for having such a limited amount of space to do so with in the first place.
You and I clearly disagree on this point. This is one of the points that I have cited as being wrong with Libertarians, in that libs consistently misinterpret the Constitution. You would have us either throw out the phrase "general welfare" or throw out the rest of the Constitution.
Neither of your extreme bi-polar claims are accurate, however. The truth is somewhere in the middle (again, see post #377). The general welfare clause does have meaning and does convey to our government some power, but that power is NOT unlimited. In alcohol, slavery, gambling, and secession are incontravertible examples of LIMITS and boundaries on the general welfare clause.
In contrast, your views would either throw out the phrase "general welfare" as if it had never been written, or else throw out the rest of the Constitution as if it was all superfluous.
You can't do either, legally. Every word has to count in the Constitution. You can't just run around and toss out unpleasant phrases simply because they are inconvenient to your political philosophy. In fact, you can't toss them out for any reason unless you follow the Constitutional Amendment process.