From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Social Spending Constitutional?
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 09:58:58 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <35144@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, daj@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr12.091843.2210@agora.uucp> robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton) writes:
|> 
|> # >>   Congress shall have the power:
|> # >>      1.  To collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common
|> # >>              defense and general welfare of the United States".
|> # >       .
|> # >       .
|> # >
|> # >       How doesn't urban infrastructure, job training, drug rehab, etc,.
|> # >       fit under the 'general wlefare [sic] of the United States?'
|> #
|> #   Whether it "fits" or not is irrelevant, since Congress is not
|> # given power in those specific areas.
|> 
|> Ah, I get it.  "General welfare" has some mysterious meaning that
|> excludes things that most of us think of as general welfare.  OK.
|> 

No, it's just that you are reading more into the clause than really
exists.  The power given in the clause in the power to tax.  The
remainder of the clause is simply a 'preamble' to the list of valid
powers enumerated immediately following.  Here's what James Madison
had to say on the subject in 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,'' [Article I, Section 8, of
   the Constitution 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. [...]  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. [...]
   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?. [...]  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?"
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In short, the phrase "general welfare" and "common defense" was
simply meant to be an introduction.  Just like the Preamble is
simply an introduction.  It was never meant to grant a non-specific
power.  Of course, over the past 60 years, the Supreme Court
has gutted the Constitution's ability to control government.  As
a result, the misinterpretations (IMHO) of the "general welfare"
clause and the "commerce" clause have given the government almost
unlimited powers.  The Constitution was originally a document
designed to limit the powers of the government.  It no longer
fulfills that function.  How sad.

James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943