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.
The commonly referred “General Welfare Clause” is often a controversial issue. There are two opposing views that have been debated since the founding of the nation. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to Congress. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
Jefferson had this opinion on the National Bank in 1791 (ME 3:148):
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, 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... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
The government, in United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936), conceded that the phrase 'to provide for the general welfare' qualifies the power 'to lay and collect taxes.' The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted.
"If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, …”
"... sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.”
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that it is accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, taking Madison's and Jefferson's point of view. Therefore, those powers not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people. In other words, powers that are not granted to Congress are also prohibited from being exercised by Congress.
It is an established principle that the attainment of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under the pretext of the exertion of powers which are granted. To state it another way, Congress may not use a legitimate constitutionally-granted power, such as taxation, to achieve an act that is specifically prohibited by that same document. “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the states.” -- Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (Wheat), p199 (1824).
Therefore, Congress may not appropriate funds for the purpose of exercising a prohibited power. That being the case, any appropriations bill for the purpose of spending on any federal social program, including education, or any other power not specifically granted to Congress by the US Constitution, would have to be considered unconstitutional.
Those powers that Congress may not exert are the “exclusive province of the states,” except where the US Constitution prohibits specific State powers. If States wish to exert their taxing authority for the purpose of creating social programs, including education, they have that constitutional authority. Whereas, Congress does not.
I would be interested to read other poster's points of view on this controversial topic.
The propaganda machine of the 1930's, coined public assistance, as welfare.
This played on the welfare clause of the US Constitution. Even though it is only public assistance, by labeling it Welfare, gave credence it was Constitutional, under the welfare clause.
What was the education level of the public in 1930's?
They preyed on the ignorant to hop over the US Constitution.
This is the same time precedence law, instead of Constitutional law and legislating from the bench, has gone over and around our Constitution.
It is law and it is sited in future cases as the gods truth in the matter, when it is unconstitutional.
Supreme Court abides by the laws of the time, as prescribed in the US Constitution. For that matter, many founders wanted slavery eliminated but they refrained from doing so, likely from fear of losing the union. So they postponed the idea for a generation perhaps hoping that people will grow up and accept the idea. Although, it really took another half century to civil war to go about settling that issue.
it doesn't really matter what the "founding fathers" thought or wrote anymore. the SCOTUS has spoken and that become the settled law of the land. Sorry, but that is the way things are, based on what the constitution says and the powers it granted the court and congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
The commonly referred “General Welfare Clause” is often a controversial issue. There are two opposing views that have been debated since the founding of the nation. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to Congress. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
Jefferson had this opinion on the National Bank in 1791 (ME 3:148):
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, 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... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
The government, in United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936), conceded that the phrase 'to provide for the general welfare' qualifies the power 'to lay and collect taxes.' The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted.
"If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, …”
"... sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.”
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that it is accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, taking Madison's and Jefferson's point of view. Therefore, those powers not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people. In other words, powers that are not granted to Congress are also prohibited from being exercised by Congress.
It is an established principle that the attainment of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under the pretext of the exertion of powers which are granted. To state it another way, Congress may not use a legitimate constitutionally-granted power, such as taxation, to achieve an act that is specifically prohibited by that same document. “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the states.” -- Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (Wheat), p199 (1824).
Therefore, Congress may not appropriate funds for the purpose of exercising a prohibited power. That being the case, any appropriations bill for the purpose of spending on any federal social program, including education, or any other power not specifically granted to Congress by the US Constitution, would have to be considered unconstitutional.
Those powers that Congress may not exert are the “exclusive province of the states,” except where the US Constitution prohibits specific State powers. If States wish to exert their taxing authority for the purpose of creating social programs, including education, they have that constitutional authority. Whereas, Congress does not.
I would be interested to read other poster's points of view on this controversial topic.
I think it was a bad decision and the SC knew it at the time and struck down parts of the New Deal. But FDR had the wind on his back, he won a election by land slide, he threatened to pack the court, the federal gvt already collected taxes and set up offices. Under pressure the SC bent and ruled it was constitutional and on that day the writers of the constitution turned over in their graves. Why? it practically made the 9th and 10th amendments null and void.
It can't be intended if it the only way to allow it is to make blacks non-persons. Obviously blacks are people and therefore entitled to all the rights intended for whites. If the words of the Constitution cannot be reconciled to the actions of the founders, then the founders were wrong but the words don't lose their meaning because the signers were wrong in their personal affairs.
Works by Gore Vidal, Henry Wiencek, and Garry Wills reveal the moral compromises made by the nation's early leaders and the fragile nature of the country's infancy. More significant, they argue that many of the Founding Fathers knew slavery was wrong--and yet most did little to fight it.
More than anything, the historians say, the founders were hampered by the culture of their time. While Washington and Jefferson privately expressed distaste for slavery (Jefferson once called it an "execrable commerce"), they also understood that it was part of the political and economic bedrock of the country they helped to create.
Countless other articles and history books written about the slavery debate at the beginning of the nation, and it was a debate, but it didn't last long and was accepted by most.
Supreme Court abides by the laws of the time, as prescribed in the US Constitution. For that matter, many founders wanted slavery eliminated but they refrained from doing so, likely from fear of losing the union. So they postponed the idea for a generation perhaps hoping that people will grow up and accept the idea. Although, it really took another half century to civil war to go about settling that issue.
The ussc does not abide by the laws - it interprets the law. Perhaps you're thinking of stare decisis - that courts tend not to go against already settled matters of law.
The commonly referred “General Welfare Clause” is often a controversial issue.
First, if you're going to put up something for debate, at least have the courtesy to get it right.
There is no such thing as the "General Welfare Clause."
The clause specifically is, "...promote the general Welfare..."
Notice the correct capitalization of the words as they actually appear in the document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
I would be interested to read other poster's points of view on this controversial topic.
All of those points of view espoused are wrong. It doesn't matter what Madison or Hamilton or Jefferson or anyone else said or thought, because they did not write the Preamble.
Morris and his committee drafted 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.
That is not propaganda and disinformation like you posted, that is the True & Correct spelling and capitalization of the introduction or Preamble to the Constitution as it actually appears.
Grammatically speaking, we can reduce it to the following:
We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That is merely a statement. It does not provide a legal basis for anything, not does it grant any powers or rights.
Let's look at the middle parts of the Preamble:
in Order to form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence
promote the general Welfare
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
"...in Order to form a more perfect Union..." is what?
A prepositional phrase.
If we look at the remainder...establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence
promote the general Welfare
...we can clearly see that "establishing Justice," "insuring Tranquility" and "providing for common defence" does what, exactly?
...Promotes the general Welfare....
...and by promoting the general Welfare through the establishment of Justice, the insurance of Tranquility and the common defence we do what exactly?
...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Does everyone understand that?
The three basic concepts are Justice, Peace and Security.
Those three concepts are what promote the general Welfare.
Put another way, when you and I have Justice, because contracts and laws are fairly enforced by an unbiased judiciary, and when we have Peace, and in this sense it is peace from a tyrannical despotic government who would violate our rights, and when we have Security, knowing that we will be defended from foreign attacks, then you and I are free to pursue "happiness" (defined as the acquisition of property -- not happiness as in "a state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy") then the general Welfare of all is promoted and that guarantees that our children and their children will have the same opportunities to pursue happiness, because of Justice, Tranquility and Security.
If anyone is seeing anything other than that, then you need to go back to the 9th Grade and learn grammar and how to diagram sentences and how paragraphs and clauses are structured.
Grammatically speaking, we can reduce it to the following:
We the People of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That is merely a statement. It does not provide a legal basis for anything, not does it grant any powers or rights.
Let's look at the middle parts of the Preamble:
in Order to form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence
promote the general Welfare
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
"...in Order to form a more perfect Union..." is what?
A prepositional phrase.
If we look at the remainder...establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence
promote the general Welfare
...we can clearly see that "establishing Justice," "insuring Tranquility" and "providing for common defence" does what, exactly?
...Promotes the general Welfare....
...and by promoting the general Welfare through the establishment of Justice, the insurance of Tranquility and the common defence we do what exactly?
...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Does everyone understand that?
The three basic concepts are Justice, Peace and Security.
Those three concepts are what promote the general Welfare.
Put another way, when you and I have Justice, because contracts and laws are fairly enforced by an unbiased judiciary, and when we have Peace, and in this sense it is peace from a tyrannical despotic government who would violate our rights, and when we have Security, knowing that we will be defended from foreign attacks, then you and I are free to pursue "happiness" (defined as the acquisition of property -- not happiness as in "a state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy") then the general Welfare of all is promoted and that guarantees that our children and their children will have the same opportunities to pursue happiness, because of Justice, Tranquility and Security.
If anyone is seeing anything other than that, then you need to go back to the 9th Grade and learn grammar and how to diagram sentences and how paragraphs and clauses are structured.
You started off good, but ended badly.
We the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Why (... in order ...)?
1. ... to form a more perfect Union,
2. ... to establish Justice,
3. ... to insure domestic Tranquility,
4. ... to provide for the common defense,
5. ... to promote the general Welfare,
6. ... to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
All six are expressions of purpose and, in my opinion, are treated equally in the Preamble. None in this list is used to emphasize another in the list. That's where you are reading more into the Preamble than there really is.
Six straight-forward reasons why the Constitution was established. Simplicity is beautiful and open to wide-ranging interpretation.
We the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Why (... in order ...)?
1. ... to form a more perfect Union,
2. ... to establish Justice,
3. ... to insure domestic Tranquility,
4. ... to provide for the common defense,
5. ... to promote the general Welfare,
6. ... to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
All six are expressions of purpose and, in my opinion, are treated equally in the Preamble. None in this list is used to emphasize another in the list. That's where you are reading more into the Preamble than there really is.
Six straight-forward reasons why the Constitution was established. Simplicity is beautiful and open to wide-ranging interpretation.
Yes, there is a big difference in promoting and providing.
Just as there is between welfare and public assistance.
All government aid was suppose to be distributed equally. Not picking winners and losers.
Yes, there is a big difference in promoting and providing.
Just as there is between welfare and public assistance.
All government aid was suppose to be distributed equally. Not picking winners and losers.
Look it up in the kings dictionary.
Promoting the general Welfare is a goal, public assistance is one of many means towards that goal. That's the difference that I see.
The means of promoting the general welfare can be seen in the providing of public assistance, industrial subsidies, educational grants, small business administration loans, etc.
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.
