There are an increasing number of government actions which Republicans claim are unconstitutional because they are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution as being within the government's purview (nevermind the Supreme Court's 1819 ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland that acknowledged the Constitution implied powers necessary to carryout a functional national government).
The latest volley? Fired by Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia who argued that federal funding for the Smithsonian is unconstitutional because the Constitution only gives Congress the power to protect artists creations and "not to actually fund it."
ThinkProgress provides a quote to Forbes saying, "As you know, the Founders envisioned us just creating an environment where we were empowering artists to use their talents and their creations, and we were having individuals reach out and raise those funds on their own and not involve the government in doing that. We’ve come so far away from the original intent about constitutional mandate and I think it’s time we get back to it."
I'd like to see Forbes put his money where his mouth is. If he believes Congress can't fund the Smithsonian because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say it can, then he should fire his staff or pay them with private donations. Afterall, the Constitution says nothing about providing funds for a Congressman or Senator to have a staff. The founding fathers about whom all these Republicans love to wax poetic didn't have legislative corespondents, constituent representatives, and the like. An aide didn't write a draft of the Federalist papers for Madison and his cohorts. There's no constitutional mandate for the taxpayers paying for a Congressman or Senator's staff. If they can't do the job all by themselves, let them pay for their staff out of their own pockets.
Or is it only unconstitutional for the government to pay for things that you disagree with, Congressman Forbes?