CMartucci

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: the first clause reads, "The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..." (My emphasis added).[ 1]

We also find the phrase "general welfare" in the Preamble to the Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."[ 2]

Debate Topic: These two sections of the US Constitution seem to give Congress the power to legislate based on anything they deem to be "the general welfare." Does Congress have this power?

---

My response:

James Madison had said, the "general welfare" does not give Congress the power "to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare."[ 3] Madison is quoted:

"With respect to the 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." [ 4]

When Madison says "qualified by the detail of powers connected with them," he means that Congress has a specific set of powers delegated to it by the Constitution (found in Article I, Section 8). Therefore, any clause in the Constitution which seems to describe how Congress SHOULD use its power, must be justified by how Congress CAN use its power.

Thomas Jefferson wrote of the dangers of misinterpreting the words "general welfare" in the Constitution in 1791. Jefferson warned the danger was "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."[ 5]

So what does "the general welfare" mean? In simplest terms, it means that the powers the government has can not be used to favor special interest groups. This article sums it up nicely:

"There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence."[ 6]

This is what I believe the "general welfare" was intended to mean. It does NOT write Congress a blank check. What are your thoughts?

__________________

RightinNYC

That was indeed Madison's interpretation. However, Alexander Hamilton had a much different interpretation arguing that "general welfare" did have the aforementioned broad meaning. The question was unresolved until US v. Butler, where the Supreme Court endorsed Hamilton's view.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

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. 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.

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] Clearly, the "general welfare" clause is trying to prohibit government from aiding special interest groups. It's as clear as day!

RightinNYC

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.

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.

It doesn't have to apply to all persons, but the actions can't benefit one area of the country over another.

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.

Goobieman

If you accept the Hamiltonian interpretation, then you can immediately reduce Article I section 8 to 2 clauses -- the first and the last -- for that's al lthat necessary to give Congress the power to do all that it needs to do.

That there are other clauses denotes that the original intent of the Constititon differs from Hamilton's position on the matter.

__________________
Haven't you noticed? We've been sharing our culture with you all morning.
-- King Leonidas

Lachean

Hamilton and Jefferson were quite opposed to eachothers notions of the proper roles of Government, I happen to agree with Jefferson (and hate Hamilton, Aaron Burr FTW!)

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

TurtleDude

This much abused clause must be read along with the Tenth Amendment

__________________
SUPPORT OUR SOLDIERS