Our Unconstitutional CONGRESS.

• Author: Moore, Stephen
• Position: Congress spending money on programs not stated in the Constitution

"... It is impossible to find in the Constitution any language that authorizes at least 90% of the civilian programs Congress crams into the Federal budget today."

IN 1800, when the nation's capital was moved from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C., all of the paperwork and records of the U.S. government were packed into 12 boxes and then transported the 150 miles to Washington in a horse and buggy. That truly was an era of lean and efficient government.

In the early years of the Republic, government bore no resemblance to the colossal empire it has evolved into. In 1800, the Federal government employed 3,000 people and had a budget of less than $1,000,000 ($100,000,000 in 1997 dollars). That's a far cry from today's Federal budget of 1.6 trillion dollars and total government workforce of 18,000,000.

Since its frugal beginnings, the Federal government has come to subsidize everything from Belgian endive research to maple syrup production to the advertising of commercial brand names in Europe and Japan. In a recent moment of high drama before the Supreme Court, during oral arguments involving the application of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, Justice Antonin Scalia pressed the Solicitor General to name a single activity or program that our modern-day Congress might undertake that would fall outside the bounds of the Constitution. The stunned Clinton appointee could not think of one.

During the debate in Congress over the controversial 1994 Crime Bill, not a single Republican or Democrat challenged the $10,000,000,000 in social spending on the grounds that it was meant to pay for programs that were not the proper responsibility of the Federal government. No one asked, for example, where is the authority under the Constitution for Congress to spend money on midnight basketball, modern dance classes, self-esteem training, and the construction of swimming pools? Certainly, there was plenty of concern about "wasteful spending," but none about unconstitutional outlays.

Most Federal expenditures fall in this latter category because it outside Congress' powers under the Constitution and represents a radical departure from the past. For the first 100 years of our nation's history, proponents of limited government in Congress and the White House routinely argued--with great success--a philosophical and legal case against the creation and expansion of Federal social welfare programs.

The Constitution fundamentally is a rule-book for government. Its guiding principle is the idea that government is a source of corruptive power and ultimate tyranny. Washington's responsibilities were confined to a few enumerated powers, involving mainly national security and public safety. In the realm of domestic affairs, the Founding Fathers sought to guarantee that Federal interference in the daily lives of citizens would be strictly limited. They also wanted to make sure that the minimal government role in the domestic economy would be financed and delivered at the state and local levels.

The enumerated powers of the Federal government to spend money are defined in the Constitution under Article I, Section 8. These powers include the right to "establish Post Offices and post roads; raise and support Armies; provide and maintain a Navy; declare War ..." and conduct a few other activities related mostly to national defense. No matter how long one searches, it is impossible to find in the Constitution any language that authorizes at least 90% of the civilian programs Congress crams into the Federal budget today.

The Federal government has no authority to pay money to farmers; run the health care industry; impose wage and price controls; give welfare to the poor and unemployed; provide job training; subsidize electricity and telephone service; lend money to businesses and foreign governments; or build parking garages, tennis courts, and swimming pools. The Founding Fathers did not create a Department of Commerce, Education, or Housing and Urban Development. This was no oversight. They did not believe that government was authorized to establish such agencies.

Recognizing the propensity of governments...