The idea that neither our taxing nor our spending should reflect the priorities and will of the people is just silly. Of course it should.
I agree. My issue isn't with taxation reflecting the priorities and will of the people, it's with using taxation to coerce behavior. Taxation shouldn't be punitive. That's what criminal law is for.
These aren't the 'powers of congress'. These are the application of congressional power. And the congressional power to tax and spend is something even you don't deny. You simply refer to it as a 'loophole', instead of a constitutional power. And taxing and spending policies reflecting the priorities of the people are what I'd hope congress would do. And what any government by the consent of the governed should do.
And I'd hope that equal protection for all would trump the priorities of the majority when they come into conflict.
If you offer a tax break for say, child care.....you're neither forcing someone to have kids, or forcing them to use child care. You're simply making it cheaper and easier.
In principle, prohibitive or negative law reflects the will, morals and ethics of the people. If they feel that alcohol hurts their society, they have every authority to forbid it. If they think that prohibiting alcohol costs their society more than it benefits them, they have every authority to repeal it. They can establish speeding laws, obscenity laws, conscription requirements, taxes and policies of virtually every description. And as long as these laws don't violate constitutional guarantees, they are expression of the consent of the governed.
And when enforced, prohibitive law absolutely the will of the people being forced on someone. The idea that prohibitive law isn't supposed to reflect the will, morality and ethics of the people is just fantasy nonsense. It does, its intended to, and it should.
This is contrasted starkly with positive laws that merely incentivise a particular outcome.
The contrast is merely psychological. It's a sales gimmick, but they are the same thing. Offering tax breaks to those who comply is no different than assessing penalties to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do as you're told, you pay higher taxes.
This is definitely where we disagree. I think law should protect us from this kind of social coercion. It should protect people from bullies and thugs, regardless of whether the bullies and thugs are in the majority.The entire basis of law is the enforcement of codified will.
This really is where our perspectives cleft irreconcilably. But let me ask you....when has law ever been what you describe? It was never that way under the founders, since the founders, in any country, anywhere. Your speaking of an ivory tower fairy tale. Not the application of actual law with people. And its certainly not the government set up under the constitution.
...
The restrictions you demand we impose have never existed....anywhere. They don't reflect any system of law practiced under the constitution, by the founders, or by any government. Where law doesn't reflect the will, ethics or morality of....anyone. In anyway. Ever.
I'm admittedly talking about ideals - that's usually the point of a political discussion - and ideals are something we'll never reach but aim for regardless. I'm not interested in second-guessing the founders intentions, or wading through torturous "interpretations" of a 240 year-old document. Though you might not, I consider myself a genuine 'liberal' in that I believe we can, and should, strive for better government and refuse to accept the limited imagination of the past.