Posted on 02/28/2018 8:16:26 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Article 1 section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution reads: “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…”
From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite. According to Madison, the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45. Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45
Madison clarified the meaning of this often abused “clause” in 1792 during the Cod Fishery Bill debate. Specifically, that the General Welfare clause is not a delegated power of its own but a description of the purpose of the limited and enumerated powers described in Federalist 45. The General Welfare clause, he explains, was added to describe the purpose of the limited powers being delegated to the central government, for example, so the central government could use those powers for the “general Welfare” of the union, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate make it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
“Welfare” is now a word practically synonymous with social aid, particularly in any context to do with the government. But when used in the traditional sense, it generically meant ‘well being’ or viable condition. Obviously anyone wanting to INTERPRET the constitution would abuse a word like this, but it’s common sense to read this clause with defense and welfare as related concepts. It means, the condition or standing of the nation against anything that would be a threat or detriment to it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of redistributing wealth or resources.
The next Constitution needs a glossary:
militia means this ...
arms means this ...
press means this ...
general welfare means this ...
natural born citizen means this ...
Why do people continue in their feeble attempts to interject fact and logic into the complex emotional arguments?
/s
From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress
Benjamin Franklin’s “if you can keep it,” was cynically condign.
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was brought up to appropriate money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to a vote when Colonel David Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
It's probably to help suppress their natural urge to use the more forcible arguments which, although better understood, are not socially acceptable. You know, things like a percussive rearrangement of dentition, or a three-legged race to the proctology office.
Those emotions are not sufficiently complex, I suspect.
Sadly our public education system today doesn’t even require a study of the Constitution. Documentation supporting and defining the Constitution are never even mentioned resulting in the sheeple our nation is today. A wish list sent back in time to the Founding Father’s would include more explicit definition IN the document.
‘General welfare’. Though I may concede it may encompass that which can be utilized by the public at large, ‘welfare’ that constitutes taking from one for the benefit of another is wholly antithesis to the 5th (and later 13th)
>
The next Constitution needs a glossary:
militia means this ...
arms means this ...
press means this ...
general welfare means this ...
natural born citizen means this ...
>
So that it can be perverted and changed as the English language is want?
As govt cannot fathom ‘shall, may, no, not, and’ (”Congress shall make NO Law”, “shall NOT be infringed”), I have yet to see *anything* made clearer with MORE ‘legalese’ added.
IMO, *every* Law/judgement should be mandated to include excerpts from the Federalist papers\Constitution. If it cannot be laid at the feet of its conceptual authority, they have no standing to even be talking about the subject to begin.
They then have less opportunity to ‘bake-in’ the generalities that allow the judicial-turnstyle of jurisprudence (bill > lawyers > judge > judgment > rinse/repeat).
We *HAD* a concept of ‘Void for Vagueness’....another one of those pesky little things the corrupt system has brushed under the rug (much like jury nullification).
My understanding is that the Federalist papers were meant to be just that: an explanation of the term's meanings and intent of the Constitution. I'm pretty sure that the Federalist Papers were written to clarify the Constitution for New York, to help them decide whether to ratify or not.
But, you're right. Even though the libs would squabble over the meaning of the language in the glossary, it would help to have a glossary.
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.ML/NJ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
"James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests [??? emphasis added] that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite."
Consider that when the rookie 14th Congress tried to use the General Welfare Clause (GWC) as the main constitutional justification for the Bonus Bill of 1817, President Madison officially clarified the following about the GWC in the constitutionally required veto explanation (1.7.2) when he voted the bill.
The GWC, Clause 1 of Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers was an incomplete grant of power to appropriate taxes, the clauses that followed it in Section 8 placing limits on Congress’s power to appropriate taxes.
"To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper." —Madison Veto Message.
Congress knows that the Founding States made the Constitution amendable, that Congress can always petition the states for new powers.
H O W E V E R …
Consider that the main legislative goal of corrupt Congress has been to ignore the clauses that follow the GWC in Section 8, particularly after the ratification of the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (17A).
So regarding the consent of the states, also consider the adage, associated with military circles, that "it is easier to get forgiveness than permission,” the military probably learning this adage from Congress anyway.
In fact, note that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had warned patriots to be on their guard against the feds unconstitutionally expanding their powers by bits and pieces.
”I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
”The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all.” —Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government …
Patriots need to finish the job that they started in 2016 by electing Trump president.
More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriot candidates on the primary ballots, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day.
And until the states wake up and repeal 17A, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of Alabama's special Senate election, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics.
Hacking Democracy - The Hack
The General Welfare is not complicated but made to appear complicated for the purpose of rationalizing power that doesn't exist.
Read the General Welfare Clause this way:
The Constitution’s “General Welfare” clause allows Congress to use their "herein granted" powers of legislation to act in the general welfare of the people.
Read limited government by enumerating legislative powers this way:
All power not expressly permitted is prohibited.
Read the 10th Amendment this way:
If we forgot anything you can’t do that either.
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.