Quote:
Originally Posted by CMartucci  I was not aware of this Supreme Court case; I had to look it up. I strongly disagree with the view that the "general welfare" clause is not "restricted in meaning" by the enumerated powers that follow it.[ 1] I think that philosophy is completely contradictory to the US Constitution. |
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, and there are in fact many people who agree with you, but questions of original intent are by their nature quite murky. While you may see that philosophy as being contradictory to the intent of the framers, there were actually many framers who shared Hamilton's view, just as there were those who shared Madison's. It's not possible to determine definitively what the "right" or "best" answer is, so we have to go by what the court says. Though I have some serious problems with the way the court acted leading up to and after US v. Butler (FDR's courtpacking), I am resigned to the fact that it is highly unlikely that this will ever change.
Quote:
First of all, if Congress is capable of creating its own powers, it must also be capable of taking power away from the states, for if we follow the 10th amendment, a power gained by Congress is a power lost by the people.
Second of all, the very wording of the 10th amendment refutes any assertion that Congress can give itself power. The 10th amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[2] I can't emphasize that enough. The 10th amendment makes it abundantly clear that only the Constitution can give Congress power and no one else. If they want more power, we have an amendment process for that.
|
Hamilton's argument is based on a different approach - he's not saying that Congress is giving itself new powers, he's saying that Congress already has this power via the general welfare and necessary and proper clauses, and are now merely choosing to exercise it.
Quote:
|
And even if we put this aside, the court never defines what the "general welfare" means. People seem to think "general" is defined as "miscellaneous." In other words, they think the "general welfare" means government is supposed to aid people in any of their random problems, and therefore, promote their "general" welfare. As I argued in my original post, this is NOT what the phrase means, and is not even a valid defintion of "general." Dictionary.com defines "general" as "of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category" (my emphasis added).[3]
|
It doesn't have to apply to
all persons, but the actions can't benefit one area of the country over another.
Quote:
Clearly, the "general welfare" clause is trying to prohibit government from aiding special interest groups. It's as clear as day!  |
I don't think this is quite right - the founders were well aware that special interest groups would seek to have their causes aided, hence the right to petition the government. If you want to know more about how Madison anticipated that the government would limit the influence of special interests, check out
Federalist 10.
Also, welcome to DP! Glad to have you.
