I want to take two seconds to explain that, yes, we do have a Spending Clause. And to claim otherwise is absurd provocation that confuses a separate debate about constitutional limitations on federal spending. (I cannot believe I'm doing this but here we go.) - ThreadSky

anthonymkreis.bsky.social • 23 days ago

I want to take two seconds to explain that, yes, we do have a Spending Clause. And to claim otherwise is absurd provocation that confuses a separate debate about constitutional limitations on federal spending.

(I cannot believe I'm doing this but here we go.)

Comments

jackbyrom.bsky.social•23 days ago

this is not very respectful of the literature

jerryedwards.bsky.social•23 days ago

I'm not so convinced. Does the Constitution use the word "spend" in that clause? No. If it's not explicit, it's not in the Constitution. Except for the nondelegation doctrine. That is implied. I am a very serious person.

erikhendrickson.bsky.social•23 days ago

I kind of like "pay the debts".

When I buy something, I incur a debt with the merchant, and am obliged to pay the debt. I do so by spending money.

tkords.bsky.social•23 days ago

Come on. A very serious person wouldn’t forget presidential immunity for criminal acts and the major questions doctrine.

iknowwhat.bsky.social•23 days ago

I remember seeing this as a child 🇨🇦

anthonymkreis.bsky.social•23 days ago

Art. I. Section 8 says "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."

That's a Spending Clause coupled with a Taxing Clause. No point in sitting on cash for fun!

anthonymkreis.bsky.social•23 days ago

There was a long debate in the Founding Era about what spending was permissible under the spending power. Should it be more tightly constrained by the other enumerated powers? Was it broader? What did "general" in "general welfare" mean? Was it just against local projects? How local was too local?

anthonymkreis.bsky.social•23 days ago

One flashpoint was an aid proposal to help Savannah in 1796 after fires that destroyed the city. Should the federal government help? Most people said, "no." There were other debates about internal infrastructure bills. Washington proposed a national university. JQA wanted a national observatory!

anthonymkreis.bsky.social•23 days ago

These were not judicially-enforced limits but political arguments about what was properly in the general welfare. Congress expended funds of things that weren't necessarily part of their enumerated powers but related to. And then we have the Louisiana Purchase-- no express power to spend there!

anthonymkreis.bsky.social•23 days ago

Unlike the "necessary and proper" clause the spending clause was not subordinated to the rest of the enumerated powers. Rather, legislators debated what was in the "general welfare's" interest. They fought then as members of Congress fight now about what's to the benefit of all Americans.

anthonymkreis.bsky.social•23 days ago

It'd be a mistake to say there's some clear original meaning that indicates what the "general welfare" means because political actors were playing politics then as they do now. Plus, America was basically a growing colonial outpost in the early years of a market revolution and then thrust in war.