General Welfare Clause - a discussion

I'm looking for a definitive Constitutional explanation about the "General Welfare" clause. I'm not referring to the words in the preamble, but to the first enumerated power.

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Madison:
"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."

"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."

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

Madison recognized that a broad interpretation destroys the concept of limited government.

Obviously, the founders intended the "general welfare" to be within the context of the enumerated powers listed in Article I, section 8.

The problem that I see is that the first paragraph/enumerated power contains the words "general welfare". This makes for a circular argument when trying to limit the powers of the federal government.

The only "out" that I see is the interpretation of "the United States". Anyone familiar with the terms used in the Constitution knows that this is in reference to the States themselves, not the federal/national collection United States as a country.

"General welfare" needs to be interpreted as things which are of obvious benefit to substantially everyone in the United States. Things which are of benefit only to specific groups or individuals have nothing to do with the "general welfare". Thus all government wealth redistribution programs are unconstitutional. But our defense capabilities pass the test, as we all benefit from not having our nation invaded and taken over by Communist dictators or Islamic terrorists.

I posted this on another thread today. It is slightly OT but goes to the general point of the futility of worrying about stuff like this.

The Constitution is a quaint anachronism, like the 13 star flag. It long ago ceased to have any effect on our polity. In 1913 the income tax was passed, Constitutional norms were adherred to. Yet at the same time the Federal Reserve Bank was put into place dispite Constitutional prohibitions on it. FDR made clear his impatience with this anachornism and ignored it for the most part. His standing army is with us to this day, and when not busy fighting foreign foes is occassionally called up to deal with domestic ones, like those religious fanatics in Texas a few years ago. While the ammendment process was used to make booze illegal it was ignored when a new hemp and opium prohibition was ushered in. Now the FedGov controls every aspect of life (down to the size of toilet tanks) and apparently all this is permitted via the "interstate commerce clause" or "the leaving breathing Constitution" interpretation or by the simple expediant of putting leftist traitors and idiots like Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court.

Face it, the time to whine about "unconstitionality" of the huge superstructure of law, force and control that is our government was a long time ago. To do so now is an interesting parlor game buy ain't gonna change a damn thing.

I don't know that it's futile.

You can put this before people that demand unconstitutional spending programs, and maybe you can get some of them to doubt, or maybe go do the research themselves.

At the minimum, you can get them to admit that they don't support the Constitutional limits on the government.

Madison said "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

With all this historical evidence about what our government must be to be legitimate, you can either get people to think, or force them to declare the Constitution "an anachronism" as you said.

In the case of the latter, they have to admit that they support the "distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government" that Madison spoke of.

You can put this before people that demand unconstitutional spending programs, and maybe you can get some of them to doubt, or maybe go do the research themselves.

OK, Free Republic performs a valid service of helping some baby conservatives grow up, I will agree. It is much less focused than it was 3 years ago. We now get our share of Jennifer Lopez related postings. The strong Constitutionalist bent is waning. In fact I could swear the charter used to specify "restoring our Constitution" but no longer does. Still FR is a good thing. But ...

In general there is no way to "put before people who demand unconstitional spending" anything ... they are empowered and in power and mostly in the various levels of govt. They already know what they want to do and listening to the occassional random member of the public spout off about something called "The Constituion" is not part of it.

At the minimum, you can get them to admit that they don't support the Constitutional limits on the government.

I defy you to get *ANY* government agency to admit to Constitutional limits. I chuckle at the thought of going to say a Metro meeting and reading parts of the Constitution to them. I would be ruled out of order and ejected. It's not relevant to the very important work of a)stealing more of our money and b) figuring out how to spend it... ah, another trip to one of our 14 'sister cities' must be in order to see how they keep their peons in line over there. Shanghi this time ! No, no what's the Mexican one?

With all this historical evidence about what our government must be to be legitimate, you can either get people to think, or force them to declare the Constitution "an anachronism" as you said.

No, sadly you can't. Most will ignore you and declare nothing (except we really need to spend more on AIDS research, or the homeless, or the salary for volunteer standing army, etc.)

Now the FedGov controls every aspect of life (down to the size of toilet tanks) and apparently all this is permitted via the "interstate commerce clause" or "the leaving breathing Constitution" interpretation or by the simple expediant of putting leftist traitors and idiots like Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court.

"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Justice Clarence Thomas

"General welfare" needs to be interpreted as things which are of obvious benefit to substantially everyone in the United States.

I would disagree. I'm no expert, but I think what you describe is something that benefits "the people". It seems to me that the Founders were very clear on this -- when they meant the people, they used the phrase "the people".

Article I, Section 8 refers to the general welfare of "the United States" which I take as a reference to the federal union of the several states. It's a national government body which has a defined role with limited powers. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was not self-supporting and quickly ran into trouble. I think the general welfare concept here is aimed at making sure that the federal union is stable and supported. Not a terribly difficult task -- one which can be done some relatively small money.

Providing charity to "the people" is very much outside the scope of "the general welfare of the United States".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.