General Welfare

[Mesogen]

Boy, I really have to keep it straight. I totally got this forum mixed up with http://ronpaulforum.com/ I was wondering why I would go to one and not be able to find the thread I posted in. Anyway...

Anyway, I'll cross post to this one too.

I am no expert in the general welfare clause of the constitution or the case law associated with it. I am starting this thread to get a better idea about it.

Article 1, Section 8 states:

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...


Some people say that the "general welfare" part here means that Congress can tax and spend as much as it likes as long as it applies to everyone and is lawful. Personally, I think the wording is quite ambiguous similar to the wording "cruel and unusual" or "commerce" and can be interpreted in widely different ways. This clause is also known as the "tax and spend" clause.

We can look to the statements of the founding fathers to see what they thought about that clause, but they had many different ideas as to what it means, too.

This page has a good run down on what James Madison had to say about the clause.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html

This page touches on case law that deals with the general welfare clause.
http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause


The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the national—as opposed to local—interest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds.

And


The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.

It would really be nice if someone could shed some light on this and maybe explain how the general welfare clause could provide some pitfalls to limiting the size and scope of the federal government.

[zMtLlC]

Madison, who I would call an expert since he was one of the main ones behind writing it, addressed this issue in the Federalist 41,


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."

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. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

[foofighter20x]

Personally, I think the wording is quite ambiguous similar to the wording "cruel and unusual" or "commerce" and can be interpreted in widely different ways.

Personally, I think James Madison--the "Father of the Constitution"--had a better understanding of the meaning of that phrase than any of us ever will.

So, then... What did he have to say about it? (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm)

[angrydragon]

Well the US Constitution is the law of the land. To make changes to the Constitution, it has to be through amendments, not through the courts. Now these Justices are interpreting the words of the Constitution the way they understand it, not it's original intent as with Madison.

Ron Paul knows the intent, and he knows the intent is not a entitlement welfare system.

BTW, what's this other forum you speak of?

[Mesogen]

Judging from

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

James Madison would be pretty pissed at the Interstate Highway System.

The man didn't even want Federal roads and waterways. Wow. That's limited.

[foofighter20x]

The highway system was sold in the 1950s under "Defense"--i.e. the need for rapid military mobilization--a subject over which Congress has expressed power.

Interesting, huh? :D

[angrydragon]

Frank Chodorov...

The "general welfare" clause meant different things to different members of the Constitutional Convention; according to Madison it was the subject of much bitter debate. But of one thing we can be sure, and that is that it meant nothing like the New Deal interpretation to any of them. It could not have justified in their minds the investment of tax-money in government ventures competing with private industry, or the regulating and restricting of enterprise even to the extent of stifling it; and a system of doles was simply unthinkable. For, the economic thinking of the day was singularly laissez faire, and the idea of government intervention in one's way of making a living was abhorrent to these recent revolutionists. In the context of their economic philosophy the general welfare was promoted only by production. The wealth of the nation is the sum total of the wealth of the citizens; the government might extract from it but could not contribute anything to it. To them the only thing the government could do to promote the general welfare, in the economic field, was to provide protection "for the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate." Having done that it should get out of the way.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/chodorov2.html

Charles Adams...

The "general Welfare" clause was also held up to be a restriction on government spending. It did not mean anything in general, quite to the contrary. It meant benefiting the whole nation. General meant no expenditures for some "special Welfare." You couldn't build a project to just benefit New Yorkers; the project must benefit the nation as a whole. That's history too. "Pork barrelling" is simply a political science term for expenditures that are for a politician who was able to lobby a "special Welfare" spending bill through Congress. Enforce the "general Welfare" provision of the Constitution and most corruption by misappropriating taxpayers' money would disappear.

The Framers of the Constitution were all realists about government, with no illusions about the dangers of political power, even in the best of hands with the wisest of men. Government had to be kept under control, and in keeping with the spirit of the Enlightenment, government must be limited and this could only be accomplished by tough controls on taxing and spending powers.

http://www.mises.org/story/2110


Grover Cleveland...

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."

Cleveland went on to point out, "The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune." Americans proved him right. Those Texas farmers eventually received in private aid more than 10 times what the vetoed bill would have provided.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7440

The Writings and Speeches of Grover Cleveland

http://books.google.com/books?id=EC-09lhr6EwC


Here is something fairly scary.


Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion wrote that, "…clearly the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a violation of the general welfare clause. I think that the federal government should have the power to do anything it can to benefit the common man. We live in modern times and quaint anachronisms like the First and Second Amendment have no real relevance anymore."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin15.html

[SeekLiberty]

Frank Chodorov...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/chodorov2.html

Charles Adams...


http://www.mises.org/story/2110


Grover Cleveland...


http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7440

The Writings and Speeches of Grover Cleveland

http://books.google.com/books?id=EC-09lhr6EwC


Here is something fairly scary.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin15.html

Thanks for the links!

I'm glad to see we have some Constitutionalists on board! That's great! :)

Perhaps what's also important to consider in all of this is how the "Grand Wizard's Imperial Court" is legislating, by granting powers to Congress (it was never supposed to have), through its corrupt interpretation of our Constitution for the united States of America.

For example;

In a case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court's opinion was larded with the sort of sociological data that might have been appropriate for a legislature considering legislation but not for a court interpreting the Constitution.

What did ruminations about an aging population, a decline in charitable donations, declining state revenues, and other alleged effects of the Great Depression have to do with the Constitution?

Precisely nothing. But the Court tried to make something out of nothing by ruling that the General Welfare Clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -- which restricts Congress's taxation powers to promoting the "general" (as opposed to special interest) welfare -- was actually a GRANT of power to Congress.

Congress, the Court said, could itself determine what taxes (and what spending) promoted the "general welfare." Thus once again ignoring the Tenth Amendment and shifting power from the States to the federal government.

Ever since the New Deal, we've had a massive expansion of federal power from a "government by judiciary" and Congress has been having a hayday ever since.

I highly recommend the new book ...

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides) by Kevin R. C. Gutzman (Paperback - Jun 11, 2007)

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5/002-8267830-3940011?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183085811&sr=8-5

It will clear up a lot of confusion for most people.

- SL

[Mesogen]

Well the US Constitution is the law of the land. To make changes to the Constitution, it has to be through amendments, not through the courts. Now these Justices are interpreting the words of the Constitution the way they understand it, not it's original intent as with Madison.

Ron Paul knows the intent, and he knows the intent is not a entitlement welfare system.

BTW, what's this other forum you speak of?

No one is making changes to the constitution. They are merely interpreting the meaning of the actual words "general welfare," and that is function of the courts.

I linked to the other forum above.

http://ronpaulforum.com/

[Mesogen]

Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion wrote that, "…clearly the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a violation of the general welfare clause. I think that the federal government should have the power to do anything it can to benefit the common man. We live in modern times and quaint anachronisms like the First and Second Amendment have no real relevance anymore."

That CAN'T be real. That has to be a hoax. :eek:

Oh, I actually RTFA. He he, well, I guess it MIGHT happen. :(

[SeekLiberty]

No one is making changes to the constitution. They are merely interpreting the meaning of the actual words "general welfare," and that is function of the courts.

I linked to the other forum above.

http://ronpaulforum.com/

Oh yes they are. It's the judges themselves whom are making changes to our Constitution for the united States of America, and Congress and Presidents have LOVED it so they can stay within the "legal" limits defined by the courts. However, it's not LAWFUL.

Our Congress and most Presidents have done an AWEFUL job in upholding their oath of office.

Ironically, modern "constitutional law" has virtually nothing to do with our Constitution. That may sound bizarre at first thought, but when one does their research, they'll discover this is completely true.

Again, I urge EVERYBODY to read this book. It will clear up so much confusion.

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides) by Kevin R. C. Gutzman (Paperback - Jun 11, 2007)

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5/002-8267830-3940011?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183085811&sr=8-5

- SL

[Mesogen]

Oh yes they are. It's the judges themselves whom are making changes to our Constitution for the united States of America, and Congress and Presidents have LOVED it so they can stay within the "legal" limits defined by the courts. However, it's not LAWFUL.

Our Congress and most Presidents have done an AWEFUL job in upholding their oath of office.

Ironically, modern "constitutional law" has virtually nothing to do with our Constitution. That may sound bizarre at first thought, but when one does their research, they'll discover this is completely true.

Again, I urge EVERYBODY to read this book. It will clear up so much confusion.

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides) by Kevin R. C. Gutzman (Paperback - Jun 11, 2007)

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5/002-8267830-3940011?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183085811&sr=8-5

- SL

I was speaking about these two particular cases mentioned above dealing with the meaning of "general welfare" in the general welfare clause.

Do you think they were making laws in those two cases?

[Mesogen]

About the book.

A couple of things on the cover are silly.

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51nJyT2fziL._SS500_.jpg

Before the 14th amendment there was no federal law that separated church and state with respect to the several states. But after the 14th amendment, the privileges or immunities clause and the equal protection clause, in effect, incorporated the 1st amendment onto the states. Since no legislature may establish a religion nor may they prohibit the free exercise thereof, there most definitely IS a separation between church and state in the constitution.

And whether the supreme court "got it wrong" is totally a matter of opinion. I don't like many supreme court decisions. But that's my opinion that they got it wrong.

[angrydragon]

I like the three framers on it, grabbing the Constitution from a judges hand.

[SeekLiberty]

About the book.

A couple of things on the cover are silly.

Before the 14th amendment there was no federal law that separated church and state with respect to the several states. But after the 14th amendment, the privileges or immunities clause and the equal protection clause, in effect, incorporated the 1st amendment onto the states. Since no legislature may establish a religion nor may they prohibit the free exercise thereof, there most definitely IS a separation between church and state in the constitution.

And whether the supreme court "got it wrong" is totally a matter of opinion. I don't like many supreme court decisions. But that's my opinion that they got it wrong.

Thanks for posting that great cover!

That's not what the book cover is saying or means. :) It means those WORDS are not "in" the Constitution for the united States of America, and I personally know they are not. I've looked for them.

Some people don't know that though. So the author used that as an easy example to show some people there are things they don't know so they get the book and learn more.

So I suggest one pay the $14 and read it. Ya can't go wrong, I promise. I don't think many will find many disagreements in this book after they understand what it says. This guy truly knows his stuff. So I wouldn't be too quick to criticize the author. :)

David Champion, who has a good grasp of the Constitution, also recommends the book. In fact, I've never found a book that David Champion has recommended that wasn't spot on.

You can listen to Dave's audio archives here:

http://americanradioshow.us/archive.html

- SL

By the way, I think the book cover is clever. It shows an arm of a Judge trying to wad up and take the Constitution away from the Signers who represented The People. This is exactly what has been taking place.

[zMtLlC]

The words "checks and balances" aren't in the Constitution either, but tell a 12th grade government class that and see what they say. From reading the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" and the statement in parenthesis after the claim, I wouldn't doubt that the author does seek to make the point that there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

[SeekLiberty]

I was speaking about these two particular cases mentioned above dealing with the meaning of "general welfare" in the general welfare clause.

Do you think they were making laws in those two cases?

Of course not. :) Judges don't make any laws explicitly. They interpret a meaning which then enables Congress to make new laws according to a new, twisted, (un)Constitutional meaning "ruled" (made up) by the Judge.

- SL