If you want to talk about a place where the constitution is being ignored, then I would direct you towards the massive infringements of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments that are routine in enforcement of the war on drugs and in terrorist investigations. You want to protect the constitution? That's a much better place to start than in meritless arguments about taxation.
I make no such claim. And you should know better than to attribute massive generalizations to someone who isn't making them. My point is that someone who is going to make a claim about constitutionality should research their point before they make it. Don't just spout "I think it means this". Find out what it actually means. And if you're going to say "it should mean this", have some proof to back it up. Don't just rely on a hyperbolic assertion that "the founders meant this, not that", or just an opinion. Expert knowledge is not required. A scholarly effort is.So now you make the claim that basically no one can comment on Constitutional law unless they have a law degree and have studied every single Constitutional case in the last 200 years? I mean really. I would say the false thing here is your claim.
The rest of your assertions, about taxation and spending, that's a perfect example. Such things are ENTIRELY within the scope of congress' enumerated powers. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. The only pertinent limitation on taxation is that it must be uniform, and congress can spend however they want to provide for the general welfare of the United States. That's what the text says. There are, of course, numerous limitations that have been held in various supreme court cases. If you want to claim that one of them supports your position, go ahead. But you have to do the research and find them first. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.