General Welfare Clause

[nick1985]

Tell me where these dolts are going wrong

"With respect to the two 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." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791



Now obviously these guys are incorrect. General Welfare gives congress to pretty much do whatever it wants. Can you believe these guys??? Were they huffing paint or what?!

 

[matt0611]

Just FYI there was a thread not too long ago where this was argued, it got no where, but I suppose thats always the case...good luck.

 

[theeedude]

Hamilton

 

[First]

Fucking troll, lol.

Founding fathers didn't agree on everything. Cite Hamilton and Franklin. Madison and Jefferson in particular had disagreement with many founding fathers, especially Hamilton, who helped formulate the general welfare clause as much as anyone including Franklin. Easy examples:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

Alexander Hamilton - 1791

The importance given to the General Welfare clause by the Framers is demonstrated by the fact that it appears, not once, but twice, in the United States Constitution--first in the Preamble, as a statement of the purpose of the Constitution, and then again in Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the substantive powers of Congress.

The clause was taken over from the Articles of Confederation, the preliminary Constitution of the new United States, during the period of the Revolution, until the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The Articles of Confederation declared in Article III (the equivalent of a Preamble) that:

``The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare....''

The Framers of the United States Constitution repeated the General Welfare clause in Article I, Section 8, for the purpose of giving it some teeth, by ensuring that Congress could raise and expend funds for the general welfare. This corrected a near-fatal defect in the Articles of Confederation: the Articles incorporated the concept of the general welfare, but failed to provide for its implementation.

How did this provision for the general welfare get into the Articles of Confederation? It was proposed by Benjamin Franklin to the Second Continental Congress in 1775. But to see why Franklin considered it to be so important, we have to go back almost a century and a half earlier, to John Winthrop and the Massachusetts Bay Colony....

 

[exdeath]

Promote the general welfare. Not secure, not provide, not ensure, not establish, not to guarantee, but to promote, or encourage.

 

[Patranus]

Promote the general welfare of the United States

As in the entity of the country not the individual citizen.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I don't understand why liberals have such a hard time reading the constitution as it was written. "General Welfare" is well-defined, and the included parts do not involve propping lazy citizens up with others' taxes or giving citizens healthcare at the financial expense of others.

 

[quikah]

This debate has raged for 200+ years. Neither side is going to be able to convince the other. just let it go.

 

[sandorski]

Hire a Lawyer.

 

[matt0611]

This will probably never be settled unless we amend the constitution, liberals will always cite the founding fathers that agree with them, and conservatives / libertarians will do the same. Even though I think even Hamilton would cringe at what the federal government has become. I don't think even he would have wanted the feds to provide healthcare and retirement for individual citizens.

Its not even so bad for liberals even if they conceded this, as I think the states should have more control over "welfare" as it pertains to the individual and they could implement all the welfare programs they would like at the state level. I think it would also be much more efficient and better to learn which ones work out the best doing it that way.

 

[Brigandier]

Its not even so bad for liberals even if they conceded this, as I think the states should have more control over "welfare" as it pertains to the individual and they could implement all the welfare programs they would like at the state level. I think it would also be much more efficient and better to learn which ones work out the best doing it that way.

I think that's what the tenth amendment was for.

 

[matt0611]

I think that's what the tenth amendment was for.

Oh yes, exactly.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Between the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clause, we can basically interpret the constitution any way we feel like it. I think the Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to justify far more ridiculous things than the General Welfare Clause, IMO.

But, at least we have the Common Defense Clause to keep us company.

 

[matt0611]

Between the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clause, we can basically interpret the constitution any way we feel like it. I think the Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to justify far more ridiculous things than the General Welfare Clause, IMO.

But, at least we have the Common Defense Clause to keep us company.

Totally agree, ever heard of Wickard v Filburn?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

The guy was growing wheat to feed his chickens and that was interpreted as falling under interstate commerce. Its hilarious (but frightening) what some people see when they read the constitution. Apparently anything that we do or that we don't do (healthcare individual mandate for example) is interstate commerce, don't you know?

 

[Genx87]

I don't understand why liberals have such a hard time reading the constitution as it was written. "General Welfare" is well-defined, and the included parts do not involve propping lazy citizens up with others' taxes or giving citizens healthcare at the financial expense of others.

Because they have a smaller amygdalae.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

According to some the government has unlimited power and should. The Commerce clause and this give it the ability to force people to stand on their heads if the government wishes. Can it mandate it? No, but according to those who support the taxation for services not rendered in the form of health care, the government can simply tax away everything you have if you don't comply.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Yes that is exactly what people believe.

Come on people, be serious.

And nick1985 it doesnt matter how many dead intellectuals you quote, the document they came up with is what we have, and we must live with their compromise or use the framework they gave us to change it.

Honestly, how can we even compare opinions about the world from 250 years ago, those folks couldnt even imagine the world we have today.

 

[matt0611]

Yes that is exactly what people believe.

Come on people, be serious.

And nick1985 it doesnt matter how many dead intellectuals you quote, the document they came up with is what we have, and we must live with their compromise or use the framework they gave us to change it.

Honestly, how can we even compare opinions about the world from 250 years ago, those folks couldnt even imagine the world we have today.

Thats such a terrible argument, "they couldn't imagine the world today", that changes nothing. It does matter what the people who wrote the constitution said when theres question about what certain phrases means. It means what it says in the eyes of the time it was written, it does not have a dynamic meaning that changes over time.

If you disagree with something in the Constitution, you don't just interpret it the way you want it thats convenient for you at the time, you change the constitution through its built in amendment process.

 

[Anarchist420]

Hamilton

And that's exactly why I don't like the Constitution.

People need to remember who wrote the Constitution. It wasn't Jefferson nor was it Madison. It was Hamilton and I do believe that Hamilton would want tax-payer subsidized health care.

I think liberals are the originalists, not the Jeffersonians.

 

[Genx87]

And that's exactly why I don't like the Constitution.

People need to remember who wrote the Constitution. It wasn't Jefferson nor was it Madison. It was Hamilton and I do believe that Hamilton would want tax-payer subsidized health care.

I think liberals are the originalists, not the Jeffersonians.

So why didnt he include subsidized healthcare when he wrote it? And I am failing to understand why it matters who wrote it. Are you suggesting the other founding fathers had no input?

 

[Genx87]

Yes that is exactly what people believe.

Come on people, be serious.

And nick1985 it doesnt matter how many dead intellectuals you quote, the document they came up with is what we have, and we must live with their compromise or use the framework they gave us to change it.

Honestly, how can we even compare opinions about the world from 250 years ago, those folks couldnt even imagine the world we have today.

The founding fathers knew times would change. That is why they included the ability to amend the constitution. Want govt provided healthcare? Add it to the constitution as a power granted to the federal govt. Why is that difficult to understand?

 

[matt0611]

And that's exactly why I don't like the Constitution.

People need to remember who wrote the Constitution. It wasn't Jefferson nor was it Madison. It was Hamilton and I do believe that Hamilton would want tax-payer subsidized health care.

I think liberals are the originalists, not the Jeffersonians.

James Madison was one the principal authors of the Constitution, so I don't know what you're talking about...

 

[nick1985]

James Madison was one the principal authors of the Constitution, so I don't know what you're talking about...

He has to be pulling our leg. Madisons nickname is "father of the constitution" for a reason

 

[matt0611]

He has to be pulling our leg. Madisons nickname is "father of the constitution" for a reason

Ok, the thought had crossed my mind...its hard to tell when it comes to anarchist

 

[Anarchist420]

So why didnt he include subsidized healthcare when he wrote it? And I am failing to understand why it matters who wrote it. Are you suggesting the other founding fathers had no input?

Because he put the general welfare clause in. And the other founders didn't really have any input, just the people at the Convention. And even then, there influence was limited, because they didn't write it.

James Madison was one the principal authors of the Constitution, so I don't know what you're talking about...

He wrote the Bill of Rights, not the 7 articles.

He has to be pulling our leg. Madisons nickname is "father of the constitution" for a reason

See above.