Full Version: General Welfare Clause
Should the General Welfare clause be defined without any shadow of doubt to provide a clear understanding of what it entails and what is not included?
Unfortunately, you cannot put the lid back on Pandora's box....
Let's say we narrowly define the General Welfare clause to include only general improvements to the welfare of the country (i.e. nothing to individuals).
Would every law on the books which benefits individuals directly then become un-Constitutional? They would. They would all be stricken down. The US would instantly become a place that it was not yesterday.
What we need is a strong leader (in Congress or the White House) to define, publicly, what the General Welfare clause will be interpreted as. Then, enforce lawmaking decisions in line with that definition.
It will never happen though. The government is politics first and running the country second, which means no politicians will nail themselves down on an issue like this.
Let's say we narrowly define the General Welfare clause to include only general improvements to the welfare of the country (i.e. nothing to individuals).
Would every law on the books which benefits individuals directly then become un-Constitutional? They would. They would all be stricken down. The US would instantly become a place that it was not yesterday.
What we need is a strong leader (in Congress or the White House) to define, publicly, what the General Welfare clause will be interpreted as. Then, enforce lawmaking decisions in line with that definition.
It will never happen though. The government is politics first and running the country second, which means no politicians will nail themselves down on an issue like this.
Should the General Welfare clause be defined without any shadow of doubt to provide a clear understanding of what it entails and what is not included?
Adding to Amlord's comments, another problem is that the definition of "General Welfare" changes over time. Certainly, insurance programs like Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security never existed (even as ideas) in the the late 18th century. Technology and social philosophy change over time. What might be considered a good and exact definition now may be inappropriate or, worse, incorrect in the future.
Adding to Amlord's comments, another problem is that the definition of "General Welfare" changes over time. Certainly, insurance programs like Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security never existed (even as ideas) in the the late 18th century. Technology and social philosophy change over time. What might be considered a good and exact definition now may be inappropriate or, worse, incorrect in the future.
QUOTE
Adding to Amlord's comments, another problem is that the definition of "General Welfare" changes over time. Certainly, insurance programs like Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security never existed (even as ideas) in the the late 18th century. Technology and social philosophy change over time. What might be considered a good and exact definition now may be inappropriate or, worse, incorrect in the future.
Isn't that the point Logo? define what it covers once and for all--there by preventing any more using it to justify new programs and force the public to find other means to saolve problems outside of Federal programs.
Take SS. It is no longer viewed as it was originally intended--even by its designer.
Things like SS and Medicade mutate far beyond what they started as and become behemoths. By defining once and for all the accepted meaning of general welfare we remove the potential for abuse.
QUOTE(christopher @ Dec 17 2004, 04:00 PM)
Isn't that the point Logo? define what it covers once and for all--there by preventing any more using it to justify new programs and force the public to find other means to saolve problems outside of Federal programs.
Take SS. It is no longer viewed as it was originally intended--even by its designer.
Things like SS and Medicade mutate far beyond what they started as and become behemoths. By defining once and for all the accepted meaning of general welfare we remove the potential for abuse.
Take SS. It is no longer viewed as it was originally intended--even by its designer.
Things like SS and Medicade mutate far beyond what they started as and become behemoths. By defining once and for all the accepted meaning of general welfare we remove the potential for abuse.
Yes, I understand the point but I don't think it accounts for possible technologies.
* Life extension technology: Should everyone have this once it's available? What are the implications for society, for retirement, etc?
* Prenatal genetic therapy: Should anyone be able to fix problems as the fetus develops? What problems are allowed or disallowed?
* Postnatal (adult) genetic therapy: What is permissable under "General Welfare"?
* Accelerated learning technologies: Does this fall under education and thus "General Welfare"?
I could go on, but the point is that it's unclear what should or shouldn't fall under government purveyance and control. We simply don't know* how new technologies will effect society and how the government fits into this.
* This isn't strictly true. We might know how some will affect society, but anyway that's another debate.
I feel the general welfare clause will be open to relativity 
Much like most of reality it seems. You cant find any fact in it save the words, then there is the relativity of how they come to be via the peoples perception that work it. You could say its so the government can send a family of four a can of beans every decade in some possible reality, or dimension in which genetically made bugs eat people everyday to help population control. It could be that one could say for the benefit of american people, over 30 individuals have to be put to sleep like on logans run as to make more for all the babies, its hard to say. You can sit and make points and then give your case for why it should be one way or that merit it, but the fact in relativity of it all is it can always be debated, its not cold hard fact we are dealing with here, so someone can just take the money and run with it per say, and that is what you get. It does not say exceptional care, so what would you get with that word if we were to try and govern it correctly in terms of government. It will just add to fundamental difference in people that in itself will change in time.
For instance what does this clause have in line with a draft, good or bad, just depends on the optics of it all
or that darn perception and relativity thing again. Sometimes i feel i live in chaos with fascists giving order to it really, with things like this, and that it all never really works due to ignorance, but that is just more of my relative perception, and of course like in reality, people dont have to see it the same with their eyes, i feel this issue is nothing more then the same...
Another example could be industry of old that is still around. It makes power that can heat your home or let you use the computer, which is good, but then it puts out chemicals into the ecology that kill life like you and give you cancer, which is bad, and then you have to deal with the mass of people or government by them to reach a point on it, which does not even have to use such a clause in a case, but could if it wanted to, not much of it makes sense to me really, but what have you.
Much like most of reality it seems. You cant find any fact in it save the words, then there is the relativity of how they come to be via the peoples perception that work it. You could say its so the government can send a family of four a can of beans every decade in some possible reality, or dimension in which genetically made bugs eat people everyday to help population control. It could be that one could say for the benefit of american people, over 30 individuals have to be put to sleep like on logans run as to make more for all the babies, its hard to say. You can sit and make points and then give your case for why it should be one way or that merit it, but the fact in relativity of it all is it can always be debated, its not cold hard fact we are dealing with here, so someone can just take the money and run with it per say, and that is what you get. It does not say exceptional care, so what would you get with that word if we were to try and govern it correctly in terms of government. It will just add to fundamental difference in people that in itself will change in time. For instance what does this clause have in line with a draft, good or bad, just depends on the optics of it all
or that darn perception and relativity thing again. Sometimes i feel i live in chaos with fascists giving order to it really, with things like this, and that it all never really works due to ignorance, but that is just more of my relative perception, and of course like in reality, people dont have to see it the same with their eyes, i feel this issue is nothing more then the same... Another example could be industry of old that is still around. It makes power that can heat your home or let you use the computer, which is good, but then it puts out chemicals into the ecology that kill life like you and give you cancer, which is bad, and then you have to deal with the mass of people or government by them to reach a point on it, which does not even have to use such a clause in a case, but could if it wanted to, not much of it makes sense to me really, but what have you.
I'll stick with Madison's limiting version of the general welfare clause.From Federalist Paper #41
If the general welfare clause does anything more than allow the federal government to fulfill it's duties as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and the Amendements then our Constitution was ratified under false pretenses. Our founding fathers feared an all powerful federal government. Their political opponents even more so. The Constitution would never have been ratified with an expansive general welfare clause. The Constitution is a contract, properly it is only a "living document" through amendments. There can be no justification for the expansion of the general welfare and commerce clauses to allow the federal government to get it's claws in every aspect of our lives.
FDR, speaking on prohibition in 1930.
QUOTE
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!
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!
If the general welfare clause does anything more than allow the federal government to fulfill it's duties as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and the Amendements then our Constitution was ratified under false pretenses. Our founding fathers feared an all powerful federal government. Their political opponents even more so. The Constitution would never have been ratified with an expansive general welfare clause. The Constitution is a contract, properly it is only a "living document" through amendments. There can be no justification for the expansion of the general welfare and commerce clauses to allow the federal government to get it's claws in every aspect of our lives.
FDR, speaking on prohibition in 1930.
QUOTE
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."
QUOTE(christopher @ Dec 17 2004, 12:55 PM)
Should the General Welfare clause be defined without any shadow of doubt to provide a clear understanding of what it entails and what is not included?
It's clear from original intent per the posts below that the powers of the federal government are limited and this clause had no intent to provide unlimited powers to the federal government through an enumerated power to "promote the general welfare", especially in light of the 10th amendment and how freaked out the founders were of giving too much power to the federal government (these days the federalism debate hardly exists, but back then it was THE debate of the time).
However, for the sake of argument, if one does take a broad interpretation, with no regard for the founders' intent, and believes the federal government is given the enumerated power to "promote the general welfare", then you have a problem, in that the 10th amendment says "those powers not designated to the federal government, or denied to the states, are reserved to the states". So, the states can do anything except those things specifically enumerated to the federal government or denied them by the Constitution. States now would no longer be able to "promote the general welfare" since it's an enumerated power of the federal government. Thus , all state laws and programs that promote the general welfare instantly become unconstitutional. All state welfare programs, education programs, etc. are now only things the fed can do.
What a tangled web we weave when we practice willful mininterpretation of the constitution!!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.