Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf
Page Number: 50

18 

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

“involve[d] much more than spending money: it involve[d] 
acquiring rights of way and constructing and operating the
improvements.”  Engdahl, 44 Duke L. Rev., at 23.  Thus, it 
was  precisely  the  “insufficiency  of  the  spending  power  to 
override state law obstacles to achieving the targeted end
that made Hamilton conclude that a constitutional amend-
ment for canals was necessary.”  Id., at 24.  “[F]ederal fund-
ing  alone”  could  not  “override”  “incompatible  or  adverse 
state policies.”  Ibid.  As this example demonstrates, even
those  who  held  the  broadest  conception  of  the  spending
power recognized that it was only a power to spend, not a 
power to impose binding requirements with the force of fed-
eral law.  See Sky 95. 

The limited nature of the spending power was also a rare
point of agreement in Hamilton and Jefferson’s bitter quar-
rel over the constitutionality of a national bank.  Reflecting
the ratification era understanding of the General Welfare 
Clause, Jefferson observed that “the laying of taxes is the 
power  and  the  general  welfare  the  purpose  for  which  the 
power is to be exercised.”  Opinion on the Constitutionality
of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank (Feb. 15, 1791), 
in  19  Papers  of  Thomas  Jefferson  277  (J.  Boyd  ed.  1974)
(emphasis in original).  If the General Welfare Clause went 
beyond “describing the purpose of the” Taxing Clause and 
represented “a distinct and independent power to do any act 
[Congress may] please, which might be for the good of the 
Union,” it “would render all the preceding and subsequent 
enumerations of power completely useless.”  Ibid.; accord, 
J. Madison, The Bank  Bill (Feb. 2, 1791), in 13 Papers of 
James Madison 375 (C. Hobson & R. Rutland eds. 1981) (in-
terpreting the General Welfare Clause as a distinct power 
“would supersede all the powers reserved to the state gov-
ernments”).  In response, Hamilton justified the bank based 
on  Congress’  enumerated  powers,  such  as  the  Commerce
and Taxing Clauses.  Opinion on the Constitutionality of an