Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 44

12 

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION 
CTY. v. TALEVSKI 
THOMAS, J., dissenting 

A 
At the outset, while Congress undoubtedly possesses the 
power  to  direct  the  expenditure  of  federal  funds,  it  is  im-
portant to note that the Constitution contains no “spending 
clause.”  From the beginning, some have located the spend-
ing power in the General Welfare Clause, and that view has 
generally  been  accepted  by  this  Court’s  modern  doctrine.
See Engdahl, 44 Duke L. J., at 53, and n. 220 (describing 
Alexander  Hamilton’s  views);  South  Dakota  v.  Dole,  483 
U. S. 203, 206 (1987).  Yet, there are serious problems with 
that view. 

The General Welfare Clause is simply part of the Taxing 
Clause, which reads in relevant part: “The Congress shall 
have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common De-
fence and general Welfare of the United States.”  Art. 1, §8,
cl. 1.  By its terms, the only authority vested by this text is 
a power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Ex-
cises.”  This power is then qualified by the Debts and Gen-
eral Welfare Clauses, which limit the objects for which Con-
gress can exercise that power.  The General Welfare Clause 
is thus most naturally  read as a qualification on the sub-
stantive taxing power.

Consider also that the General Welfare Clause references 
not  only  the  “general  Welfare”  but  also  “the  common  De-
fence.”  If the Clause were construed as an affirmative grant 
of power to spend for the common defense, it would make
redundant Congress’ powers to “raise and support Armies”
and to “provide and maintain a Navy,” also found in Article
I, §8,  cls. 12–13.  Thus, “[i]f the reference to ‘common De-
fence’  spending  simply  alludes  to  power  conferred  else-
where,” then it seems illogical to consider the terms “gen-
eral Welfare” as the source of a freestanding power to spend 
for whatever purposes.  D. Engdahl, The Basis of the Spend-
ing Power, 18 Seattle U. L. Rev. 215, 222 (1995). 

The  Taxing  Clause  is  also  a  strange  candidate  for  the