Just because the power to levy taxes is expressed in the Constitution it doesn’t follow that “therfore the Constitution effectively dictates the federal government can do whatever it wants with respect to spending and regulation”…which is effectively what you’re arguing.
The majority of the argument against the Constitutionality of Obamacare is the fact that it does not fall within the expressly delegated powers of the federal government. (This is essentially the cornerstone of every argument of unconstitutionality…as, something is “unconsitutional” if it goes against what the Constitution says.)
The counter-argument that proponants of Obamacare (and essentially any form of centralized power) respond with is a simple reference to the words “promote the general Welfare”. Essentially the argument is "the Constitution says it is within the purpose and power of the federal government to “promote the general Welfare”…“general Welfare” essentially meaning whatever the person talking is advocating.
The part which is most relevant to your question is the so-called “Taxing and Spending Clause” which states:
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
So essentially, proponants of any sort of government control or influence or mandate or, virtually anything, basically point to that one line and contend that whatever they are trying to force people into paying for is part of the “general Welfare” and therefore is Constitutional. Like this: “[whatever I’m advocating] promotes the general welfare of society. Bam. Constitutional.”
But obviously, if all you have to do is fit what government power you’re trying to create into the bucket of “general welfare” and that makes it Constitutional, there’s obviously no point to having a Constituiton at all. Obviously this notion was recognized by the people who actually authored the Constitution. Of course, Madison (“The Father of the Constitution”) was quite vocal on it:
- "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. [emphasis original]
-Letter to Edmund Pendleton (1792-01-21) - “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 - “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate “On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees” (1794-01-10) - “— that is the General Welfare Congress may raise money to provide for, which words plainly refer to the Stipulated Powers of the Government”
-[coincidentally enough, from another letter to Pendleton in 1792 (Feb 8)] - “What think you of the commentary (pages 36 & 37) on the terms “general welfare”? The federal Govt. has been hitherto limited to the Specified powers…”
- letter to Henry Lee, 1 January 1792
- With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
-Letter to James Robertson (1831-04-20)
And have a look at what he said would happen if this actually were to happen:
If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.
-remarks on the House floor, debates on Cod Fishery bill, (February 1792)
Smart guy, no?
In essence, the whole point of the Constitution is to restrain federal power. Not grant the central government the authority to do whatever it wants. Again, you don’t need a Constitution for that. And the colonists certainly didn’t need a revolution for that…they already had that situation under the king.
The United States Constitution clearly states:
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.‘’
Then it says,
“The Congress shall have power To…[A];
To [b];
To [c];
[…]
To [s].”
So to summarize, it states “everything we list here can be done by Congress (i.e. House & Senate).” Then it lists what can be done. Nowhere does it state anything about forcing people to buy things, providing health care, providing insurance, providing education, or any of the other things the federal government currently does or that people want it to do. (Meaning nowhere does it say anyone but the Congress can do what is listed…as in, including the President.) And to go a step further, later in the Constitution it says specifically: “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.”
Therefore, if it’s not in the enumerated powers, Congress can’t do it. And if it is in the enumerated powers, no other federal governmental body can do it.