Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We see it in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution.
Quote:
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;
Article 1, Section 8 goes into detail about the powers granted to Congress. Spelling out, very specifically what powers they have. We then have the 10th Amendment, which places a restriction limiting the U.S. Government to powers only specifically delegated in the Constitution, reserving decision on any other matters to the states or the people therein.
However, in 1937, we have a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The case, "Helvering v. Davis" was about Social Security, in which the Supreme Court held up the Social Security tax on employers. In doing so, the Court made a ruling about what they felt the General Welfare meant.
Here is the Syllabus of the ruling:
Quote:
1. The Court abstains from dismissing, sua sponte, as not properly within equity jurisdiction, a bill by a shareholder to restrain his corporation from making the tax payments and the deductions from wages required by Title VIII of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, the bill alleging that the exactions are void and that compliance will subject the corporation and its shareholders to irreparable damage. P. 639.
The corporation acquiesced. The Collector and Commissioner of Internal Revenue intervened in the court below, defended on the merits, brought the case to this Court by certiorari, and here expressly waived a defense under R.S. ' 3224 and any objection upon the ground of adequate legal remedy, and urged that the validity of the taxes be determined.
2. The scheme of "Federal Old-Age Benefits" set up by Title II of the Social Security Act does not contravene the limitations of the Tenth Amendment. P. 640.
3. Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." P. 640.
4. In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary. P. 640.
5. The concept of "general welfare" is not static, but adapts itself to the crises and necessities of the times. P. 641.
6. The problem of security for the aged, like the general problem of unemployment, is national, as well as local. Cf. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ante, p. 548. P. 644. There is ground to believe that laws and resources of the separate States, unaided, cannot deal with this problem effectively. State governments are reluctant to place such heavy burdens upon their residents lest they incur economic disadvantages as compared with neighbors or competitors, and a system of old age pensions established in one State encourages immigration of needy persons from other States which have rejected such systems. P. 644. [p*620]
7. When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the States. P. 645.
8. Title II of the Social Security Act provides for "Federal Old-Age Benefits" for persons who have attained the age of 65. It creates an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the Treasury and authorizes future appropriations to provide for the required old-age payments, but, in itself, neither appropriates money nor brings any money into the Treasury. Title VIII imposes an "excise" tax on employers, to be paid "with respect to having individuals in their employ," measured on the wages, and an "income tax on employees," measured on their wages, to be collected by their employers by deduction from wages. These taxes are not applicable to certain kinds of employment, including agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years.
Held:
(1) Title II being valid, there is no occasion to inquire whether Title VIII must fall if Title II were void. P. 645.
(2) The tax upon employers is a valid excise or duty upon the relation of employment. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ante, p. 548. P. 645.
(3) The tax is not invalid as a result of its exemptions. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ante, p. 548. P. 646.
89 F.2d 393, reversed.
My issue with this ruling is that it seems to confer unlimited authority to Congress by means of the General Welfare clause. Yet, if the General Welfare clause was to be so all-encompassing, why then did the Founders feel a need to spell out the specifics of what Congress was allowed to do? Would there have been any need to go any further than the General Welfare clause had this been the intent?
The Supreme Court, in ruling thus on the meaning of the General Welfare, did indeed open a Pandora's Box and confer almost unlimited power to the general government.
If this clause did indeed confer so much power to the Congress, what then of the 10th Amendment? Has the court effectively ruled the 10th Amendment null and void?
General welfare is also in the Preamble. The Preamble is THE Constitution, it spells out why We the People established the republic. The rest of the document is just footnotes detailing procedures. And then comes the Amendments, which have their own preamble, stating that the amendments apply in case anybody on a power trip tries to misconstrue the constitution.
Interpretation of the constitution always starts with the Preamble, and the reminder of the document is to be construed as intending to fulfill the goals in the Preamble.
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.
Seems pretty clear to me. Everybody knows what "general welfare" means, and anything that runs counter to the general welfare is unconstitutional. You get into trouble when you try to pick something apart that is already clear.
"According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years."
Hamilton was the winner with the Court leaving Congress to interpret what 'general welfare' means. It is fluid and subject to change. Once you decide you know what it means, Congress can go ahead and change the definition. I agree with James Madison that the Federal government should be limited to the powers specifically granted to it. That's the reason for the 10th ammendment. I believe the Court was wrong.
Everybody does not know what 'general welfare' means:
More correctly, no one knows what the "General Welfare Clause" meant or means. According to Prof Richard Beeman's excellent recounting of the Constitutional Convention, "Plain Honest Men" the general welfare clause was adopted unanimously and without debate. It wouldn't be for another forty three years that Madison would give voice to his objection to the expansionist interpretation. But even Madison had to admit that interpretation was due to the "variations and vicissitudes" that reflect the wildly varying opinions of the 55 delegates who drafted the Constitution. Breeman goes on to point out that by 1830, Madison's opinion about the meaning of the general welfare clause and his argument for limited Federal powers are in direct contradiction to his very own proposals which would have allowed the Congress to veto any law passed by any state that the Congress found objectionable.
Personally, I think that this is a classic example of the dubious argument regarding strict construction and the equally dubious use of quotes from singular members of the Constitutional Convention, any read of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention will lead one to understand that the document is the product of 55 different men each of whom had their own ideas of what the document that they crafted, through compromise (and subsequently open to interpretational meaning) meant, as the history of Supreme Court decisions (in particular Marbury v Madison 1803 and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).) and political conflicts that arose about what the powers of the Federal government were or weren't in the years immediately following its ratification clearly illustrate.
As for the 10th Amendment, remember the "Framers" were adamantly opposed to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights from the very beginning. It wasn't until opposition was mounted by the Anti-Federalist that their hand was forced and the 10 Amendments were included.
Seems pretty clear to me. Everybody knows what "general welfare" means, and anything that runs counter to the general welfare is unconstitutional. You get into trouble when you try to pick something apart that is already clear.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Clear as a bell. Unless you don't like guns, then it's murky as heck.
I don't believe that the "general welfare" clause was intended to be as overwhelmingly abused as it is. Same with the "interstate commerce" clause. Both have been used by Congress to usurp virtually all sovereignty from the states and from the people.
I believe that the OP is right - the Constitution would have been written much differently if our founders intended for Congress to have the overreaching authority that they believe they have today.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Clear as a bell. Unless you don't like guns, then it's murky as heck.
Not in the least, If you are a 10th Amendment literalist the Bill of Rights only covers actions by the Federal government not the states as some legal scholars right left and center would argue.
Quote:
I believe that the OP is right - the Constitution would have been written much differently if our founders intended for Congress to have the overreaching authority that they believe they have today.
Then you don't know very much about the "Founders". They ran the gambit when it came to their opinions on power of the Federal government. As I stated about, even Madison proposed that the Congress should have the right of absolute veto over any law passed by any state legislature.
perhaps a linguist might offer some additional illumination here, but it seems to put the word "General" in front of the word "welfare" seems intentional as mean not guaranteeing an absolute state of "Welfare"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
