It is such a waste of time responding to you. You reply to a post about Madison complaining about Congressional SPENDING on "constituents" (when in reality it was monies for French refugees) with this jem:
"the constitution does not permit giving money to people."
...and you wonder how I came up with "Congress is prohibited from spending"? As I said, this is complete waste of time because you apparently can't remember what is posted from day to day nor can understand the meaning of the words on the page, but I will write this slowly in hopes it will get through. When a person says: "does not permit", most sentient beings understand this to mean "prohibited", ie, not permitted. It is that simple. And when it is added to "the constitution does not permit", again, you are making the claim the USC prohibits, in this case, Congress spending monies for relief...or broader....welfare. I asked you to prove this.....you did not.....and then you suddenly get confused about the ORIGINAL POINT OF CONTENTION. What is wrong, did you slip and hit your head? I have no idea how it is that you have suddenly become confused about what you replied to over the last 2 days (yesterday and today), but there you are. I'm having a hard understanding why it is that I am having to explain to you what you have been debating with me....but there you are, you seem to lose track and get confused a lot in our debates......even when the comments and replies to all of this are still existing and all one has to do is to go back and review if anything is forgotten.
So what it the deal, why can't you do this?
Further, just to clarify this confused (by you) argument about spending:
“Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”