According to the Heritage Spending Clause explanation what are the two purposes of Congressional spending?
According to Heritage Spending Clause there are two purposes of Congressional spending, one is for the general welfare of the United States that Congress considers helpful to the nation which can be a broad list, such as defense, the other purpose is the power to tax in order to pay debts incurred by the United States by borrowing money.
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Heritage Spending Clause" essay for youCreate order
The contrary positions of Hamilton as opposed to Madison and Jefferson is that Hamilton supported Congress’s ability to exercise its power in a broad manner as an enumerated power to benefit general welfare in reference to the agricultural and educational needs. He supported that taxes be given out in portions and there should be no tax on articles exported from any state. Madison supported Congress’s ability to exercise its power in a narrower manner as an enumerated power to benefit general welfare in reference to regulating interstate, foreign commerce, and providing for the military. Madison did not support the unlimited power to tax and spend.
Hamilton’s more moderate or “”intermediate view on Congressional spending has broader coverage for common defense and general welfare that could cross over into providing for the individual states.
President Madison rejected bills pertaining to internal improvements because he felt they were not Constitutional. President James Monroe also rejected bills pertaining to internal improvement but eventually approved those same bills because he had trouble defining the separation between “”general”” welfare and local welfare. President John Quincy Adams followed suit by supporting local projects and as a result was defeated in the next election by President Andrew Jackson. President Andrew Jackson reigned in the spending and rejected millions for the turnpike development and for construction of roads and canals. Congress received the message loud and clear and stopped trying to pass other bills. Presidents James K. Polk and James Buchanan served their terms frugally as well.
United States v Butler (1936) changed it by the conflict of the Agricultural Adjustment Act by imposing taxes on processors of farm products and the payment made to farmers if they would reduce their production in order to increase prices.This act was unconstitutional because it was an attempt regulate and control agriculture. The Federal government was overstepping their spending power.
In South Dakota v. Dole, the Court adopted a four-prong test that determines if the spending is Constitutional. (1) “”the concept of welfare is shaped by Congress”” and must be used for the general welfare.(2) Conditions not open to more than one interpretation. (3) are the projects associated with national projects or programs being and (4)there are not to be constitutional provisions to the conditional grant of federal funds. In South Dakota v. the Court declared that by adopting a twenty-one-year-old drinking age was linked to federal highway funds. It was believed that the eighteen-year-olds residents would go to neighboring states with lower drinking age limits to obtain alcohol and would become high risk drunk drivers on the same highways that were created with federal money. The Court confirmed a sufficient connection.
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper