Not what I am saying, as I am pretty certain that you knew. The interpretation of the constitution that gives the federal government the power to raise taxes and spend them for the “general welfare” goes back a long way.
I know this, but why are you avoiding first the clear text of the constitution, that grants the legislature the power to raise taxes for the general welfare, and the existance of restrictions on the power of the legislature in the Constitution other than the 9th and 10th Amendments? If the meaning of the Constitution was as you are claiming, why would there be a need to state that “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States” if there is no clause in the Constitution that gives the government the power to grant a Title of Nobility?
The first basic principle of legal interpretation is that where the text is clear, you don’t go any further. And the text is clear. Congress has the power to raise taxes to provide for “the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” If you want to argue that PBS funding is not in the general Welfare, then it is even possible I would be on your side. But the Tenth Amendment simply does not apply here unless you make that step first. Were we to be talking about a law that required all children in the United States to watch 2 hours of PBS a day, then it would become applicable. But when the dispute is about funding, that’s a power specifically reserved for the legislature.
Sure it does. But it is an interpretation to say that “the general Welfare” necessarily includes funding for the arts. That interpretation is new.
Nor would it be necessary to state that “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion”, etc. Yet it does, so the Constitution goes on to make clear several of the things the federal government is not allowed to do.
The text also says "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. " And most of the Amendments after the Bill of Rights go on to add "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. " So the precedent of making clear that Congress can legislate this specific power is already set, the “general Welfare” clause notwithstanding. The “general Welfare” clause does not seem to be enough to establish the rights of the government to act in all those other cases - why do you believe it is enough in the case of PBS funding?
Let me put it to you this way - what limits exist in principle on the power of the federal government to do anything “for the general welfare”? Is this a blank check, or is there something that can’t be included under “general Welfare”?
I was going to come up with an example, but I have to go do some real work. I will try to check back later.
Which is why I repeatedly state that to make the Tenth Amendment argument, you or anyone else needs the step that it is not part of the general Welfare. Waving the tenth on its own is not enough.
What the Courts have done for many years is to rule that what constitutes the general Welfare is a political question, to be decided by Congress. That’s pretty solid jurispuridence, too.
It’s not my interpretation of the constitution that requires there to be a precise word for word grant of power. I think the writers of that document were pretty smart people, and used language pretty well, including some deliberately general language. But the bottom line is that there is a specific grant of power to Congress to tax and spend for the general Welfare. It’s in there in black and white, therefore the language you cite is inapplicable. While “the powers not delegated” are reserved to the States/people this power IS specifically delegated…
I simply don’t understand your point about other Amendments. The general Welfare clause gives Congress the power to tax and spend for the general Welfare, but not to legislate for it - they cannot, for example, set a national drinking age of 21 through federal legislation. They can however, use the tax and spending powers to encourage a national drinking age of 21.
Answered above, but I will restate. The limits in principle are as follows:
[ul]
[li]the power is to tax and spend, not to legislate[/li][li]the power is a political one, and the courts have ruled the interpretation of what is general Welfare to be a question for Congress[/li][li]Congress is limited by regular elections, and is therefore subject to the will of the people[/li][/ul]
But, as was noted earlier, basic math and science research probably wouldn’t attract enough individual consumers willing to pay for sponsoring it either. We don’t leave it up to individual consumers to make the decision about whether such things should be funded, because we’re pretty convinced that funding them provides benefits to society beyond immediate individual entertainment.
I think the same holds true for the arts, although perhaps to a lesser extent, which is reflected in their much lower level of government funding.
I don’t know whether PBS is the best place for it, but certainly I have no problem with dedicating a minuscule fraction of tax dollars to support some kind of media access for interesting and unusual sports. Why would you think that I would be opposed to such an idea?
Sure, arbitrary decisions have to be made somewhere about what we’re going to fund because we can’t fund everything. Individuals and government agencies will consequently always argue about exactly where to draw the line on funding. But I don’t see any valid reason to draw that arbitrary line, as you’re trying to do, so as to exclude all forms of artistic/cultural/educational programming.
Your saying “Tax dollars shouldn’t ever be spent for arts funding because I don’t believe the arts have any benefits other than immediate personal entertainment value which individual consumers should pay for” is just as arbitrary as your saying “Tax dollars should be spent to fund judo on TV because I believe that judo is interesting and fun to watch”. Both of them depend on the assumption that what you consider valuable should determine what gets funded.
Wrong. Public television that receives donations from private sources is not equivalent to commercial television. I already explained why that fact is evident. Your rebuttal seems to be: “They get money from private sources”. That has nothing to do with the point I made.
Me: “Commercial television can’t do what public television does.”
You: “They get money from private sources.”
How is that a rebuttal to what I wrote?
I don’t get it. It’s like if I said, “A 4 cylinder engine doesn’t have as much power as a V-8”, and you replied with “V-8’s use unleaded gas”.
The issue at hand is whether commercial television could have provided the type of programming that PBS did. How does this address that issue?
Exactly my point. They don’t get picked up unless producers for commercial networks decide that they think the shows are commercially viable. So were it not for PBS those shows that started on PBS and later got picked up by commercial networks would never have existed without PBS.
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. If PBS shows bring in money through donations or merchandising, then there’s that much less tax money needed to fund them. Isn’t that exactly the kind of thing that gives Libertarians huge boners?
Although every fiber of my liberal being shrieks in protest at the very idea, I’m thinking that, yeah, it may be time to close the federal funding spigot to PBS. I don’t think anyone herein has argued that PBS has no raison d’etre, only that it doesn’t need tax money to survive. I think it doesn’t.
Several years ago, KUNC (originally the “lab” radio station of my beloved alma mater) was kicked out of the state funding nest by then-president Hank Brown (former senator, current interim president of University of Colorado and one of the most devoted public servants Colorado has ever produced.) A non-profit organization bought it, went on a funding blitz, and now runs the finest NPR station in the Rocky Mountain west. In the end, KUNC was made better by shutting off the government funding pipeline. It is responsive to its listener/subscriber base (which tends to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative) and has awakened a sense of duty and responsibility among we who fund it.
Maybe PBS should likewise be cut off from government funding. I think, if I were faced with the reality that KRMA in Denver depended entirely member funds for its existence, I would do two things: (1) give money and (2) watch it more. How could either of those be bad?
How is that a rebuttal to what I wrote?