[KantianBurke]

What is your interpretation that the NEA is constitutional?
The closest approximation that I can find is in Article I, section 8:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

This is in no way a blank check to dole out funds for artwork. Those key words "promote," "progress of" and "useful arts" tend to disqualify anything approaching the Endowment.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, I know that you'll find this upsetting, but I think that the reality is that you're approaching this from the wrong direction. A lot of people think that our courts are unduly activist, but the reality is that our courts very rarely interfere with programs that Congress determines to be constitutional, unless the program violates some specific constitutional prohibition. Two recent cases (Lopez and Morrison), relating to the power of Congress under the commerce clause, have provided a tiny bit of hope that the courts might become more activist, but not nearly activist enough to strike down something like funding of the arts.

The reality is that, except for those limitations, Congress (subject to Presidential veto) more or less determines for itself the limits of its own constitutional power to act with regard to such matters. If you want a smaller federal government, you need to elect different people to Congress.

[weegee]

Not only that but it shows that the concept of public domain works is constitutional (in fact the 100 year copyrights would not be; which author lives over 100 years after creating a work?)

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

Disney Inc. got the government they paid for.