[DannyTN]

Well, we can take it back and implement you're understanding of the constitution. All you got to do is convince half the citizenry to elect politicians willing to repeal the Food Stamp Act.

That or get a Constitutional Amendment clarifying that clauses in the preamble shouldn't be used to justify anything and only enumerated powers apply. And while you're at it, you need to outlaw the use of matching funds to provide incentive to states to accept federal influence that isn't enumerated.

Good luck.

[thesharkboy]

That or get a Constitutional Amendment clarifying that clauses in the preamble shouldn't be used to justify anything and only enumerated powers apply.

Such an amendment is not needed. The Constitution is written in plain English, and is easily understood with anyone having a rudimentary education. We don't need to change the Constitution in order to explain what is set down plainly.

[NorthMountain]

All you got to do is convince half the citizenry to elect politicians willing to repeal the Food Stamp Act.

Which won't happen if we're not willing to talk about it.

And while you're at it, you need to outlaw the use of matching funds to provide incentive to states to accept federal influence that isn't enumerated.

Which won't happen if we're not willing to talk about it.

I oppose taking money at gunpoint from the productive class and giving it to the parasite class because:

1) It is morally wrong
2) It is clearly NOT authorized by the Constitution.
3) It is destructive social policy

I would like to think that these reasons for opposing government sponsored theft, or Marxism (whichever you wish to call it) would be received favorably by conservatives.