Constitution 101....clarfifying the "General Welfare" clause

Tweet

Part II of my per diem constitutional clarification series. I thought with the healthcare debate raging, and the use of the "general welfare clause" to promote the idea, now would be a good time for some clarification. How ever, let this not be construed as a "healthcare" debate thread, such a debate is beyond the scope of this thread. This is more to clarify what the writers of the constitution intended in general and not at all specific to any one act or policy by government. This has been used to enact and justify all manner of government action and next to the "interstate commerce" clause, is probably the most abused and misinterpreted of constitutional language. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." [b] ~ U.S. Constitution, Preamble It should be understood that the framers DID NOt intend this to mean everything that benefits the people. It was meant ONLY with in the enumerated powers of government. It really isn't too difficult to understand as the limits to this clause are the very same, self contained limits with in the constitution and the framers wrote this with the assumption of applying the clause with thse limits. The term "General Welfare" is a term describing public good, not individual welfare. This is supported not only by the philosophies of governence held by the founders, but by their writings. I give you three quotes from Maddison.... [i] "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 employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." "Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made." [/i] ~ James Madison Now, before any of you pull Jefferson out of your pocket to counter this, he also held this same interpretation... [i] "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." "They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." [/i] ~Thomas Jefferson Again I will assert, the constitution is not rocket science and does not require a law degree to read and understand. One need only look at the other writings and speakings of the people who wrote it and an understanding of the philosophies of of governence they held.