Yes, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq is the legal basis for the NSF. What’s the Constitutional basis for that law? The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments. For example, the Congress does not have the power to regulate rents outside of federal territories. Which enumerated power enables 42 U.S.C 1861?

The Tenth Amendment clearly states, ‘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.’ If the Constitution does not grant a power to the Congress, it does not have it and it has no more legislative authority in that regard than you or I do.

You’re verging into SovCit stuff here.

Article I, Section 8 says:

“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.”

Yes, and then Article I, Section 8 goes on to explain what counts as the ‘common Defence and general Welfare’ when it enumerates the Congress’s powers.

That’s not Sovereign Citizen nonsense — it’s very basic constitutional law. Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example.

> Congress doesn’t have the ability to pass national rent control, for example

Rent control should be easy to fit within "general welfare".

Congress not only _could_ control rents nationally, congress _has_ controlled rents nationally [1] and those controls survived the review of the court.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Price_Control_Act_of...

The Supreme Court has decided what ‘the general welfare’ means, and it is not limited to the listed powers. This information is not difficult to find, as would be expected given the last 90ish years of spending that is obviously not limited to the list of powers.

> You’re verging into SovCit stuff here.

It's a reading of constitutional law that insists that the only thing that matters is what they can shallowly read in their pocket constitution, while totally ignoring most of the constitution itself and any of the surrounding court precedent. :)

Eadmund incorrectly notes "The Congress only has the powers granted in Article I and further amendments", and cites the tenth amendment while asking "What’s the Constitutional basis for that law?"

Duh, the appointments clause in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause. :3

> Article I bestows on Congress certain specified, or enumerated, powers. The Court has recognized that these powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which provides Congress with "broad power to enact laws that are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to [the] beneficial exercise" of its more specific authorities. The Supreme Court has observed that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to establish federal offices. Congress accordingly enjoys broad authority to create government offices to carry out various statutory functions and directives. The legislature may establish government offices not expressly mentioned in the Constitution in order to carry out its enumerated powers.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

Uh, Congress absolutely does how the power to charge money outside of federal territories [1] and it's a long standing complaint of ex-pats that they have to pay federal taxes.

Section 7 [2] lets them write laws as well as Section 8 [4] . Section 8 aslo lets them pay for it [3].

[1]: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-c...

[2]: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar...

[3]: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar...

[4]: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar...

> Congress absolutely does how the power to charge money outside of federal territories

Of course it does. It has no power to regulate rents outside of federal territories, which is what I wrote. It cannot pass national rent control, for example.

> Section 7 lets them write laws as well as Section 8

Section 7 describes how bills are passed; Section 8 describes what those bills may do. Congress has no Constitutional power to require that every home in the United States have yellow shutters. I feel like this should be uncontroversial! I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks otherwise.

Oh boy, wait until you read [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn], where the Supreme Court ruled that growing food for your own use, on your own land falls within the boundaries of the interstate commerce clause, and hence can be regulated by the Federal gov’t.

“While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.“

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

Funding the NSF fits neatly into the commerce clause; which is a tent large enough to cover practically anything since Wickard v. Filburn.