Governments can perform illegal acts. Not everything a government does is moral or justified. Just because a government says something is right and good does not make it so. There was a time when it was OK to enslave people. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that killing unborn babies is a fundamental right. These are criminal acts, but because they are done by a government, there’s no way to prosecute.
Governments often kill, steal property, and imprison people based on laws they manufacture with no constitutional authority. It happens every day.
There’s a great deal of liberal angst over some of the cuts that Pres. Trump is proposing to Congress:
“President Trump’s proposed budget calls for big cuts in a wide array of domestic programs — among them, agencies that fund the arts, humanities and public media.
“Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be cut to zero under the proposal, and the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely, the first time any president has proposed such a measure.” (NPR)
Why should NPR get funding but not GaryDeMar.com?
You won’t find anything in the Constitution to support these so-called “domestic programs.” When elected officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then violate that oath, they are by definition thieves. They are using their office to steal money from people.
Why should money be stolen from the public to finance the arts or Public Television or the education of other people’s children? The “general welfare” clause in the Constitution does not apply to these “particular welfare” programs. “General welfare” has nothing to do with wealth redistribution, even for the best of reasons. The list following the clause defines what constitutes “general welfare,” and the arts, education, and nearly everything that is being done from Washington are not found on the list.
Archie Jones writes in The Gateway to Liberty: The Constitutional Power of the Tenth Amendment:
“[James] Madison’s argument that those who look to the General Welfare Clause . . . as a constitutional basis for justifying the exercise of powers which are not stated in the Constitution are committing not only a grammatical but also a constitutional absurdity ought to be instructive to us when we are trying to understand the meaning of our Constitution, and when we are considering the unconstitutional things that men have tried, and still try, to force the Constitution to justify.”