Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
Well the authors of said document would disagree with you. That phrase is a preamble and the following are specific powers that the congress has to achieve the stated goal of providing 'general welfare' to the United States. Everything after that clause would be totally redundant if it means what you say it does.
Why would the people, who designed a government based on limited powers and checks and balances, give congress the ability to raise money for whatever they thought fit in that clause (basically a blank check)? Plus their own writings refute your interpretation of their intent.
|
It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of the Supreme Court (United States v. Butler and Helvering v. Davis)
Neither you nor I were there to know what all the authors of said document intended. but it its well documented that various contributing authors had different thoughts in mind when considering the meaning of the general welfare clause. In addition to Madison's perspective, Alexander Hamilton had very different thoughts:
The only restriction, Hamilton continues, is that money thus raised, cannot be applied for any merely local purpose. (that might apply to earmarks in today's political environment, but not agencies like the EPA, FCC, FDA,SEC....)
"The constitutional {test} of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose of {general} or {local} nature. If the former, there can be no want of constitutional power.... Whatever relates to the general order of the finances, to the general interests of trade etc., being general objects are constitutional ones for {the application} of {money}.''
This is further elaborated in the ``Report on Manufactures,'' in which Hamilton declares that the general interests of Learning, of Agriculture, of Manufactures, and of Commerce, are all within the purview of the General Welfare.
"The terms `general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limit than the `General Welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification or of definition.''
In his Final Address to the Congress in 1796, George Washington endorsed Hamilton's view....(in effect, urging agricultural subsidies):
Washington argued that, ``with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance,'' and he proposed the creation of institutions for promoting agriculture through ``premiums, and small pecuniary aids, to encourage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement.'' (not in the list of enumerated powers)
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm
It doesnt matter what you or I think it means. We have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the Court has NEVER interpreted the powers of Congress to be narrowly restricted to the enumerated powers that followed the general welfare clause.