Why are you tossing softball questions at me? The obvious answer is:
Amendment XXI
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws theroeof, is hereby prohibited.
LOL
That doesn't say Congress can't prohibit alcohol, dimwit. And it's also not part of the original Constitution. No wonder you can't get anything right.
Since I've been beating the stuffing out of your absurd claim that Congress has a "general welfare power"... except when it doesn't (making sense isn't your strength, apparently), you decided, in your next post, to get aggressive. Am I supposed to be intimidated or something?
Where have you seen the courts ever limit government power?
Try the link in #400.
The whole concept that our Constitution "limits" government is a bunch of hype from clueless Libertarians.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Strike one!
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Strike two!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Strike three! The hack is out!
And there's plenty more where that came from.
The lesson: an aggressive tone will never make up for not knowing what you're talking about.
Show me where lawful courts have ruled against government programs.
#400.
Show me where any respected authority has ever, in the history of our nation, passed down judgements that are in line with your radical claims.
Respected authority?! I gave you the Federalist Papers! I have more, of course.
The Annotated Constitution:
The grant of power to ''provide . . . for the general welfare'' raises a two-fold question: How may Congress provide for ''the general welfare'' and what is ''the general welfare'' that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: ''[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.'' The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted, Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.
The Annotated Constitution, by the way, is a official US government publication. Are you ready to surrender yet?
And remember, there's more where that came from. Face it: you're dying on the wrong hill.
Lincoln got the draft and the income tax through because of the general welfare clause.
You don't know history very well, do you?
But oh no. A.J.Armitage says that the general welfare clause conveys no power, has no meaning on its own, and can simply be disregarded.
You're misrepresenting my position, probably intentionally (in other words, you're a liar). I never said it can be disregarded. Your absurd misrepresentation of my position seems to come from an obviously wrong presupposition, that any clause not granting power is meaningless. No wonder you don't think the Constitution limits government power; you've got your own filter, shifting out everything you don't like.
Show me where government has been restrained by our courts. show me where the general welfare clause has been ruled to have had no value.
Since you seem to think having value means giving power to the federal government, your second "challenge" is absurd.
Your first, on the other hand, is simplicity itself.
Would it be too much to ask you to admit you were wrong? Almost certainly. Either way, let me point out who the true extremist is here. You've angrily denied there are Constitutional limits on federal authority, and called the idea that there are limits "radical and disproven". The disproven proves, yet again, that you don't know what you're talking about, and the radical proves how disconnected you are from American history and the views of the Founders. Of course the federal government is limited by the Constitution. Only a wild-eyed fanatic (who doesn't know what he's talking about) would say otherwise.
You can't do it, and that's a challenge to you.
I just did it.
Now here's a challenge to you. Tell me why I should pay more attention to some guy on the internet (leaving aside your own demostration that you don't know jack) than to the Federalist Papers.