What Type of Conservative Are You and Why it Matters

by Freddie Boisseau

The first step in fixing a problem is to identify the problem. To do that you have to be honest to yourself about what the problem is. The conservatives in this country suffer from the problem of ignoring the different types of conservatism and how those parts can work with and against each other. To resolve this problem we first need to be honest about who we are and resolve the conflicts between our different factions. Split asunder we are used against each other, and thus, made weak.

From my perspective, the three factions of conservatism are political, fiscal and social. They each have their good points and their own unique weaknesses. These weaknesses can and must be tempered by the strengths of the other forms of conservatism. This can only happen if we understand those strengths and weaknesses, and that is what I hope to develop with this article.

I would like to start with Political Conservatism, or what can also be called originalism. This group tends to believe in the principle of limited government that our Founders setup for us. They tend to support personal freedom and liberty, negative rights, and the free market system. They are the defenders of the Constitution and the Republic. They truly understand the ideas of John Locke and the republic that Madison designed, but they also understand the concerns the Founders like Patrick Henry expressed about that republic. Unfortunately, they do not have the whole answer to our problems, they have their own weaknesses.

The Political Conservatism policies are not necessarily bound by fiscal or social boundaries, and this is where they make their mistakes. For example a Political Conservative could be lead astray to supporting major military expenses, because they are authorized by the Constitution. Without the restraint of Fiscal Conservative principles, there is nothing to restraint their belief that the expense is legitimate. They need the beliefs of the other two to keep them from falling into traps like this one.

Fiscal Conservatives are the members of our society that watch the pocketbook. They tend to support limiting government spending and thus they prefer lower taxes paid to the government. They also seem to support other sound fiscal policies dealing with money, such as borrowing and rules dealing with banking. They also are the primary supporters of the free market and the principles set forth by Adam Smith. They understand the differences in views of Jefferson and Hamilton regarding the central bank.

But their primary weakness mirrors that of the Political Conservatives, they are not as beholden to the Constitution as their Political Conservative brothers. They can and have been led astray in supporting programs that are unconstitutional, because they sound good and the expense is zero or very low. For example, a Fiscal Conservative would have no problems with implementing regulations eliminating home schooling, as long as the additional cost to the government and citizens are low or non-existence. Since they are less bound by the Constitution, they have no problem violating the rights of parents to educate their children as they see fit. They need the Political Conservatives’ ideals to help them recognize when they go astray.

I left the Social Conservatives for the last, because, to me, they are the most important, though they are also the most likely to be led astray. They are the heart and soul of the conservative movement. They hold and promote the rules that we use to define how we treat each other and it is from these rules that we formed our Constitution and our republic. They are the ones that promote our morals and helping of those in our society that are less fortunate. They are the heirs of all great religious leaders that have shaped our world for the better. This is where we draw our greatest strength, and it is also our greatest weakness.

It is our greatest weakness, because while their beliefs were used to create our Constitution that the Political Conservatives hold dear, they are not bound by it. They are not also bound by the beliefs of the Fiscal Conservatives; they have a higher purpose to uphold. It is this purpose helping those less fortunate than them that can be very destructive. If they lose focus because while we should be a moral people and help each other, those charges are individual in nature. We cannot force people to live up to those standards, nor can we protect people from their own destructive behavior. We must realize that while some of the beliefs and values expressed by Social Conservatives are good for both the individual and society as a whole, each of us must come to those beliefs and values willingly.

Finally, I have been speaking as if these three type of conservatism need to be brought in balance in the group as a whole, but actually these three types of conservatism need to be in balance in all of us. If they are in balance in all of us, then they are in balance in whole. For example how many of you have not helped someone who asked for and needed help when you could? Have you lied to a police officer if you broke a law, even speeding? Is doing that holding to the principle of a Social Conservative, helping other people and upholding social norms?

How many you have promoted not allowing someone to express their opinion because you disagreed? How many of you have discounted or persecuted another religion because it was one you disagreed with? Is that holding to the principles of a Political Conservative, protecting the rights of others given to them by the Creator?

How many of you spend money that you do not have? How many of you live from paycheck to paycheck? Is that holding to the principles of a Fiscal Conservative, not building up debt and controlling spending?

I know that I cannot answer no to all of the above. I know that I have failings, but acknowledging that fact is the first step to recovery. I know that I have a lot of work to do to bring myself in balance, but I also know that I can count on you to help me do that, just like you can count on me to help you.

Our Nation and The Tea Party

By Daren Gardner

In one year our nation has come a long way. April of 2009 brought the beginning of what is proving to be a movement of American citizens definitely ready for the right change. Tea Party activists all across this land have come out to pound the pavement for a solid year now. Week after week, month after month, and rally after rally. It mattered not where, local, state, or at our Nation’s Capitol, our country is ready for a new beginning, but not the way our elected officials see it.

This new way is really the old way, the way our founding fathers envisioned our country. The sacrifices made by the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, while putting to pen our unalienable rights. The vision of men like John Hancock of Massachusetts, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. As stated;

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (source: The Declaration of Independence)

It is with merit that these words so precisely written by these patriots of our country, that they understood the tyranny that could take place in the future of this nation. These protections given to us as citizens to remain free from such tyrants.

This way really is the old way. As thirty-nine delegates signed the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787. The likes of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, along with convention's secretary William Jackson who also signed the document, not as a delegate, but in attestation of the document's signing, again to protect the citizens of this nation from future destruction and tyranny, had a reason for the first three words to say, “ We The People”.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. (source; US Constitution)

As citizens, it is our obligation to educate ourselves, understand the facts, understand what’s at stake, and understand the consequences of our actions if these rights are ignored. To many times, far more citizens than should, refuse to pay attention to what is happening, which leaves our nation in a peril of which we live in today.

I believe as a nation, and as Tea Party activists, we first must make sure we focus on the end result. To save our freedom and our liberty. I also believe in doing this we cannot allow egos or selfish agenda’s by a few deter this movement from its end goals. To bring America back to the times you could trust your brothers and sisters to do what’s right. You believed what our elected officials would tell us. If Tea Party leadership does not apply the value of common sense to the equation, then we will have exactly what we are fighting against today.

American voter, this is your country , and it is time you believed in something. I would hope your freedom and liberty truly mean something to you, and that your time is worth investing in saving our country. Yes, America belongs to all of us, not a select few. Follow your heart, educate your mind, and support the candidates with your vote that has the right agenda for your locality, your state, and our nation. Do not get caught up in the negativity and bashing of individuals, or groups that have their own agenda, but do what the integrity of your heart tells you to do. You may just have LUCK (Laboring Under the Correct Knowledge) on your side.

America, stand for the truth, it will always set you free!

Entitlements, Recipients, & Contributors by Julie Ranson

In my last post on entitlements, I focused on the growing bloat of the welfare state in the U.S. This time, let’s talk about the recipient class and the provider class in this entitlement nation.

One of my favorite radio talk show hosts, Andrew Wilkow, speaks often about the recipient class and its members’ status as “zero-liability voters.” A zero-liability voter is a member of the recipient class who receives more money back from the government than he/she put in. We can also call the recipient a “non-contributor” or a “net consumer.” (Among other things….)

FDR's New Deal and the Earned Income Credit (EIC) are significant factors in the growth of the citizen class. The EI credit has been expanded for years 2009 and 2010. Those who earn this credit file taxes and often receive a refund over and above anything paid in. Roughly 40% of Americans pay zero or less in federal taxes. What happens if or when this recipient class exceeds 50%? Imagine the power this group will have to consistently elect those who will continue to pay them. What courageous politicians will be willing to cut entitlement programs and, essentially, commit political suicide?

On the other hand, what motivation does a recipient have to get off of welfare? Consider this scenario that repeats itself across the country and around the globe:

A lady in business for herself needed help to meet the demands of her customers. She has hired five different helpers during the past year; each has, after varying lengths of time, simply not shown up for work. The latest hire, who showed the most promise, was given a Christmas bonus and a Christmas gift, after which she never returned. Each of these employees was, in general, poorly educated and receiving, in one form or another, monthly handouts from the state or federal government. There was, therefore, little need for them to hold down a job.

This recipient class has no feeling for the provider class. Rich people can “afford” to pay more, can’t they? Isn’t this what liberals say too often? Listening to a liberal radio talk show host right after healthcare passage, I heard the host opine that “finally the rich will pay their Fair Share.” Another viewpoint decries tax cuts as welfare for the rich. “The key Republican tax proposals during the Bush administration have amounted to massive amounts of welfare for a class of Americans who don't need the help.” It’s THEIR money the government lets them keep. Hardly welfare, but such is the viewpoint of the left.

With a burgeoning federal deficit and no spending cuts in sight, the government will need to seek out more taxpayers or increase the taxes of those who are Taxed Enough Already.

Entitlement Nation: Death of a Republic

My oldest daughter is taking a college political science class. Recently, she emailed me asking for guidance on selecting a period of party dominance in America’s history. She was to write an essay about the era and why it was important. I couldn’t identify them off the top of my head, so I hit the search engine and found three major periods of party dominance. Not surprisingly, the most recent period running from the years 1932 to1968 was dominated by the Democrats. I suggested she look into that period, reminding her briefly the warped history of the “great” Depression, the FDR years, and Johnson’s Great Society. The events of those thirty-six years have paved the way to the current “Entitlement Period” which may very well lead to our destruction. (There are many with whom I won’t disagree that assert this all began with Woodrow Wilson, but I’ll just stick with the most recent 40 years of data, if our readers don’t mind.)

My daughter’s question prompted me to think about the evolution of our country into the “Entitlement Nation” that we are today. I’ve thought about it so much it’s led to this post, which is the result of much research. It’s absolutely depressing and positively frightening to think about the grave danger this extremely large part of government spending poses to our country’s social and economic health. Think about it, what does it say about our society and its future when so many are looking for a handout? There are far too many people who are asking what can their country do for them, and too few who understand and appreciate the intrinsic value of hard work and achieving success by one’s own hand while living as a contributing member of American society. The “Handout Attitude” is going to cost, and cost us dearly.

Consider this: In 1992, the combined Federal, State and Local Welfare Budget was comprised of 34 entitlement programs. According to the House Ways and Means Committee report in 2003, the list of income-tested benefit programs detailed 85 programs! As well, the same report states that expenditures for only income-tested benefits have risen from $16,116,000 in 1968 to $522,156,000 (in current dollars) in 2002. A whopping 3140% increase.

Without significant reform, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will rise from 18 percent of GDP to 28 percent by 2050. That means that just these three federal government programs will be consuming between a quarter and a third of everything this country produces. Paying for those programs would necessitate raising the corporate and top income tax rates to 88 percent, the current 25 percent tax rate would rise to 63 percent for middle-income workers, and low-income workers would pay not the current 10 percent but 25 percent instead. The catastrophic impact this would have on our economy and American workers cannot be dismissed.

If that’s not enough to really bother you, consider the rest of our country’s financial mess. According to the AP in February 2010,

“The government already has made so many promises to so many expanding 'mandatory' programs. Just keeping these commitments, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained. Take Social Security, Medicare and other benefits. Add in interest payments on a national debt that now exceeds $12.3 trillion. It all will gobble up 80 percent of all federal revenues by 2020, government economists project.
That doesn't leave room for much else. What's left is the entire rest of the government, including military and homeland security spending, which has been protected and nurtured by the White House and Congress, regardless of the party in power.
The U.S. debt crisis also raises the question of how long the world's leading power can remain its largest borrower.”

An editorial in a Florida newspaper wrote during last summer’s Obama Healthcare push, “Once upon a time if you wanted something you paid for it. Once upon a time it was embarrassing to ask the government for anything. That was once upon a time. I heard a new version of the reference to "Give a man a fish, he eats for the day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Now it is, "Give a man a fish, he eats for the day; teach him to fish and he'll vote for the one who gave him the fish."

After reading these dire statistics , I was prompted to look up the phrase, “banana republic” and after wading past the entries for the trendy retailer, I found this definition: Banana republic is a pejorative term originally used to refer to a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique. I am so glad that I’d already started planning my vegetable garden for the summer.... we can get a jump on the banana republic ethic about to slap us silly! Reflecting back to the start of this post, I am absolutely resolute that I, a patriotic American, am self-reliant and won’t be seeking a handout should the stuff really hit the fan. I’d also like to think that one day I can make the independent choice NOT to sign up for Medicare, but then again, maybe it will have gone the way of our liberty and national sovereignty.

Julie Ranson is a wife and mother of three. She teaches business courses at a community college in Virginia.

Drifting down the Mainstream...by Julie Ranson

In late February, at the CPAC meeting in Washington DC, American conservatives met to experience and engage in conservative thought. The annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) meeting is sponsored by the American Conservative Union. The ACU brands itself as “America’s Oldest and Largest Grassroots Conservative Organization.”

In the straw poll conducted annually at CPAC, this year’s winner was Ron Paul (R-TX). According to CPAC’s poll data, 2,395 of the 10,000 attendees voted; 64% were male and 54% were aged 18-25. In addition to voting for favorite 2012 presidential candidates, poll respondents also indicated other priorities: a) 58% believe that Congressional Republicans should focus on cutting federal spending; b) 52% want to see a reduction in the size of government; and c) 80% identified their most important goal as “promoting individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens.”

The selection of Ron Paul in the straw poll has drawn a few disdainful observations. On Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday program, both Mara Liasson and Juan Williams stated that Paul is out of the mainstream and doesn’t represent most conservatives. (View their remarks around the 38 minute mark)

While I’ll refrain from tossing my support behind Paul at this time, I beg to differ that Paul’s chances of winning the presidency are nil because of these criticisms. Remember, the 2009 Gallop poll identified Conservatives as the largest ideological group with 40% of Americans self-identifying as conservative. On the other hand, only 21% of Americans describe themselves as liberal. Yet, Barack Obama won the White House even though he was ranked at the far left during his brief tenure in the Senate. Clearly, he represented even fewer mainstream Americans when he campaigned nor does he now that he is President.

What is clear today is that conservative voters will seek a candidate that truly embraces conservative ideals (whether the Republican Party machine delivers one for us is another story). It’s also clear that citizens are serious and highly motivated today in their involvement in day-to-day governance, both locally and nationally. More importantly, young people are engaged and vocal, and this may be the most noteworthy data from CPAC. They are our future, after all. Draw whatever conclusions you will from the CPAC straw poll or the other attendance data… It’s still an exciting time to be an American voter!

A Missing Black History by Freddy Boisseau

I was in a book store and noticed that they had pulled books out front for “Black History Month”. That got me thinking, did any book in the book store deal with a very impressive African-American that I have come to admire. So I asked a store employee to see if he could find any books in the store about this individual. After searching several different ways, he was not able to find any books that mention this person in the store's inventory system. This was not surprising given this person’s history.

The story I was looking for was about Samuel B. Fuller, a very successful African-American businessman. He was born in 1905 to a sharecropper family in Monroe, Louisiana. His family was so poor that he was working at age nine selling door to door and dropped out of school in the sixth grade. This good training would serve him well later in life. When he was fifteen his family moved to Memphis, and two years latter his mother passed away leaving him and his six siblings to fend for themselves.

In 1928 he moved to Chicago, and worked as a coal hiker and then became an insurance salesman. Doing well, he shortly moved up to a managerial position. It was during this time he took $25 and bought some soap, which he then sold door to door. This was so successful that he later invested $1,000 dollars in the business and incorporated Fuller Products Corporation in 1929.

By 1939 he was one of Chicago's most prominent black businessmen, with 30 products in his line, a small factory and a team of salesman working for him. In 1947 he wanted to expand his business and purchased the Boyer International Laboratories, a cosmetics manufacturer. Since this company’s products were geared to the white market. Because it was felt that making this public would hurt sales, this sale was kept quite.

By 1959 his company had expanded considerably. His company sales had peaked at 10 million dollars, he had over 300 items in his inventory and sales force of 5000. He had built a home worth a quarter of a million dollars. He was had an interest in several other cosmetic companies and was the major shareholder of the Pittsburgh Courier Publishing Company. This company was the owner of oldest black newspaper, the New York Age, and the largest circulated black newspaper, the Pittsburgh Courier. He also invested in real estate, owning the Chicago's Regal Theater, the Chicago's counterpart to Harlem's Apollo Theater, along with properties in several major cities including New York. He also owned the Fuller Guaranty Corporation and the Fuller-Philco Home Appliance Center.

Samuel Fuller was known as a master salesman and a great motivational speaker. The November 1957 Ebony magazine stated the following about him, “he cajoles, questions, lectures, coddles and spanks his dealers with words that have come to be gospel to Fullerites.”. He was also quoted as saying in the same article “The door-to-door salesman is the backbone of today's economy.... At Fuller Products Company, there's only one race--the human race.... A man doesn't have to have a lot of degrees behind his name to earn $10,000 a year.” Mr Fuller would also tell his black employees that they could do anything, telling them “anything the white man can do, so can you. Don't ever feel the way is closed to you because you are a Negro. All you need is faith in God and faith in yourself.”

When the White Citizen's Council learned that Boyer had been sold to him, they boycotted his products throughout the South. The fact that he would not go along with the view of the black leaders of his time led to problems with groups like the NAACP. He was very critical of them, because he felt they spent too much time trying to change the views of whites and not helping blacks. He said “Negroes are not discriminated against because of the color of their skin. They are discriminated against because they have not anything to offer that people want to buy.” These views caused the African-Americans leaders of that time to call for a boycott by their organizations.

These boycotts were the start of his downfall. In 1964 the SEC charged him selling unregistered promissory notes and he was placed on a five-year probation. A social service agent campaigned against him giving credit to people on welfare, and convinced them to not honor their debts. This created a loss of more then a million dollars, and forced Fuller to sell off his interest in the publishing companies and his retail stores. In spite of taking these actions to save his company, he had to file for bankruptcy in 1969. He was able to reorganize his business under bankruptcy laws and in 1972 had over $300,000 in profits. In 1975 his company was producing 60 products including cosmetics and other beauty products.

Mr. Fuller was a person that divided his time between business and civic duties, including being the head of the South Side chapter of the NAACP. He was also known for supporting other African-American businessmen, including those competing against him. When Johnson Products, a competing cosmetic company, lost their facilities due to fire he allowed them to use the Fuller facilities while they rebuilt.

Samuel Fuller passed away on October 24, 1988 most likely from kidney failure at St. Francis Hospital in Blue Island. At that time, his survivors included his wife, five daughters, 13 grandchildren and 18 great-grandchildren. He should be best remembered as a great entrepreneur and a mentor, who never judged a person by the color of their skin, but by their character. Instead you almost never hear a thing about him today.

This is why I admire this individual. Here is a man with a sixth grade education that during the time of Great Depression and a time of blatant racism, who built up a multimillion dollar and diverse company. Just doing that, without the handicap of racism thrown in, is reason enough to admire what he did. I believe Samuel Fuller is someone that should be promoted to our children, instead of hidden in the shadows of history.

Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Fuller
http://www.answers.com/topic/s-b-fuller
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/28/obituaries/sb-fuller-door-to-door-entrepreneur-dies-at-83.html?pagewanted=1

Healthcare & the General Welfare Clause - A Troubling Pairing, by Freddy Boisseau

I just came across this blog post today: “Donald McEachin Eviscerates Anti-Individual-Mandate Legistation” As one that believes in the Constitution and the principles it espouses, I thought it needed a response. Let us look at the two sections that come into play here. First, we have Article 1 Section 8, which spells out the power given to Congress by the states.
Section 8. 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
There are two points to be made here. First nowhere in that section do you see anything that relates to healthcare or an individual’s health. Now, when you bring that up to people like the poster of this blog, they then point to this part, “ general Welfare of the United States”. The problem here is twofold, first the meaning of “general welfare”, has changed over time. Alexander Hamilton, the Founding Father with the loosest view of the General Welfare clause wrote the following in the Federalist Papers.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

From both of these quotes, I fail to see how even he could justify the Federal Government getting involved in Healthcare. The second problem with using the “general welfare” clause can be shown with the following example. Suppose a gated community hired me and signed the following agreement with me:

Frederic L. Boisseau shall have Power To lay and collect fees, to provide for the safety and well being of the community; but all fees should be uniform for each homeowner;
To patrol the streets and apprehend those that commit crimesTo secure the entries to the community
To provide emergency services to fight fire and give medical aid.

If I then started saying that you could not have a pool (kids could drown in it), a real Christmas tree (fire hazard), swing sets (a child could get hurt), or blinds on your windows (might prevent me from seeing a crime being committed). You would say that I was crazy, you did not give me that authority, and you would not accept any argument that I had that authority from the “safety and well being” clause. And you are right, my authority is clearly limited to the 3 items listed above.
When you take the above in context with the 10th amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people” is very clear. Restated, it says to Congress -- If the power is not listed in Article 1 Section 8, CONGRESS YOU CANNOT DO IT. End of discussion.
For those of you who would like more information or insight on what this writer calls the “10 Troubling Clauses of the US Constitution”, see this link http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html.