Louis Alfred Nickolas Stalwart Institute

With regard to Federal Entitlement Programmes, the Position of the Louis Alfred Nickolas Stalwart Institute is as follows:

1. The key purpose of the United States Constitution was to act as a restraint on the Prerogatives (think: Rights, Privileges, Powers, Authorities) that the Federated State could wield. The Tenth (10^th) Amendment to the Constitution is clear that the only Prerogatives the Federated States can wield are those granted thereto in and throughout the Constitution. While the word “expressly” does not appear before the phrase “delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” several Supreme Court Cases, most notably, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) strongly asserts that the Federated State is only in possession of those Prerogatives given to it in and throughout the Constitution. As the Power to Administer Economic Welfare is not expressly granted to the Federated State, all Federal Entitlement Programmes are prima facie Un-Constitutional, as are all Appropriations of Federal Funds issued to the Unionsed States to Administer State Entitlement Programmes.

2. Per the Tenth (10^th) Amendment to the Constitution, all Prerogatives not vested in the Federated State are vested in the Unionised States or the people. When considered collectively along with several Judicial Opinions, most notably, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) wherein the Supreme Court ruled that it is within the Sphere of Sovereignty of each of the Unionised States individually to provide for the Health, Welfare, Safety and Morals of the Residents thereof. These Judicial Opinions, led by Jacobson, make it clear that the “Police Power” is a collection of Prerogatives within the remit of the Unionised States, not the Federated State. Therefore, whether Economic Welfare is extended to Americans, U.S. Citisens, Permanent Residents of the United States and other individuals legally and lawfully resident in the Interior, and if so, to what extend and under what Terms and Conditions, is a decision for each of the Unionsed States to decide individually.

3. Some argue that the use of the phrases “the Common Wealth” and “General Welfare” in and throughout the United States Constitution gives Congress the Authority, circa Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (“the Necessary and Proper Clause,” “the Sweeping Clause,” “the Elastic Clause”) of the Constitution, to establish and maintain Federal Entitlement Spending and by extension, grants the President the Authority to establish and maintain Federal Entitlement Programmes. This is a fundamental mis-understanding of what the phrases “Common Wealth” and “General Welfare” mean. In the “modern” conception, these phrases where and when still used, carry an economic meaning. As used by the Founding Fathers, these phrases were a reference to the (Moral, Spiritual and) Political Welfare of the Body Politic.

4. Some argue that Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (“the Commerce Clause”) of the United States Constitution the Authority to establish and maintain Federal Entitlement Spending and by extension, grants the President the Authority to establish and maintain Federal Entitlement Programmes. This is a fundamental mis-understanding of what the word “Commerce” means. Commerce is the exchange of value – of a good or service for either cash or a good or service of equal or more value. Economic Welfare is not an exchange of value – it is a grant of value to someone who cannot provide equivalent value, either through cash or a good or service. Additionally, consider that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the Authority to Regulate Inter-State Commerce (Commerce that crosses state lines), not Intra-State Commerce (commerce that occurs exclusively within a state). Economic Welfare where a U.S. State receives grants from Congress for Administration does not constitute Inter-State Commerce because the activity is between the Federated State and a Unionised State, not two or more Unionsed States. Even if one were ardent in his belief that Economic Welfare is a type of Intra-State Commerce that Congress could Regulate, per long-established Judicial Doctrine, the only Intra-State Commerce that Congress could Regulate are those that would substantially affect Inter-State Commerce. And given that, as previously discussed, Economic Welfare is not Commerce, it is not possible for the Federated State to maintain Federal Entitlement Programmes or Federal Entitlement Spending under the guise that the failure to do so would have a substantially negative impact on Inter-State Commerce that it is constitutionally empowered to curb or prevent.