# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  The General Welfare Clause

## Sematary

What exactly does it mean? It seems to me to be an open ended invitation to the government to enact any damn program it wants as long as it benefits the nation as a whole. Of course, that got turned into personal and corporate welfare but that's a discussion for another day. So what IS allowable under the general welfare clause? What isn't? I think it is very broad and allows far more than many of us would like or admit is constitutional but it is there for a reason. So what does it mean?

----------


## Danke

> What exactly does it mean? It seems to me to be an open ended invitation to the government to enact any damn program it wants as long as it benefits the nation as a whole. Of course, that got turned into personal and corporate welfare but that's a discussion for another day. So what IS allowable under the general welfare clause? What isn't? I think it is very broad and allows far more than many of us would like or admit is constitutional but it is there for a reason. So what does it mean?


There have been good discussions on RPF about this.  Do a search.

----------


## Sematary

> There have been good discussions on RPF about this.  Do a search.


Or we could have the discussion again.

----------


## RSLudlum

Unfortunately, it's a very defining claim to federal power in the Constitution by Hamilton's twisted interpretation that many have wantonly abused time and time again as you have stated.

----------


## Sematary

> Unfortunately, it's a very defining claim to federal power in the Constitution by Hamilton's twisted interpretation that many have wantonly abused time and time again as you have stated.


There is SO MUCH that can be claimed as "general welfare" including, but not limited to - education, bailouts, nasa, transportation, etc.... etc.... on down the line. All they have to do is CLAIM that such and such an appropriation or department is created in the best interests of the nation and VOILA, we have constitutional authority and REALLY, who is to say they don't?

----------


## Danke

> Or we could have the discussion again.


Ya sure, reinvent the wheel.  I hope all the good comments from before magically reappear in your rehash.

Why not *continue* the discussion instead?  Ie. tag on to those past threads.

----------


## Sematary

> Ya sure, reinvent the wheel.  I hope all the good comments from before magically reappear in your rehash.
> 
> Why not *continue* the discussion instead?  Ie. tag on to those past threads.


Easier than searching through the database.

----------


## Number19

There is a new book just out - I got mine from Amazon - by Thomas J. DiLorenzo :

Hamilton's Curse - How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution and What It Means for America Today

On the back cover, it was endorsed by Ron Paul, among others : "One of the leading economic historians working today. Combines knowledge of the principles of economics, solid historical research, and a passion for liberty."

Unless you are already well read on these political adversaries, this book really goes into the details so you understand just how, and how much, America today is Hamiltonian and not Jeffersonian.

As mentioned by RSLudlum, the Federalists knew precisely what they were doing when they managed to get the General Welfare clause incorporated into the Constitution. One more thing, Hamilton was the first to argue that the Constitution had "implied powers", not just those specifically granted in the Constitution. He believed the Federal government, implied through the General Welfare clause, had an unlimited power to Tax, in order to Fund the General Welfare.

Good read. Recommended.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*"We the People ( BS ) of the United States ( BS ), in Order to form ( BS ) a more perfect ( BS ) Union ( BS ), establish Justice ( BS ), insure ( BS ) domestic Tranquility ( BS ), provide ( BS ) for the common ( BS ) defence ( BS ), promote ( BS ) the general ( BS ) Welfare ( BS ), and secure ( BS ) the Blessings of Liberty ( BS ) to ourselves ( BS ) and our ( BS ) Posterity ( BS ), do ordain ( BS ) and establish ( BS ) this Constitution ( BS ) for ( BS ) the United States of America ( BS )."* *( It only gets WORSE later on.<IMHO>  )*

*Index to the Antifederalist Papers*
*http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm*

*'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -- Thomas E. Woods, Jr.*

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Yes...the powers use the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause for power grabs.  The only way to fight it is to work at the local and state levels to get politicians elected who actually pay attention to the enumerated powers, and also who read the comments from the MAJORITY of the founders, who also considered "general welfare" to be too open ended.  Tones

----------


## Number19

> "...(the Constitution) is unfit to exist..."


Spooner was writing more than 50 years after the Constitution was written. It's easy for those later in time to criticize those who came before, with all that had been learned and advanced in the intervening years. The same happens today.

At the time it was written, the Constitution was the greatest document in history - the greatest advance in history - to form a government that would protect individual freedom. As Ron Paul said in Minneapolis, "the Constitution is not a perfect document, but it is a very good one".

Spooner, if he literally meant what is said in these words, was wrong on this account.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Spooner was writing more than 50 years after the Constitution was written. It's easy for those later in time to criticize those who came before, with all that had been learned and advanced in the intervening years. The same happens today.
> 
> At the time it was written, the Constitution was the greatest document in history - the greatest advance in history - to form a government that would protect individual freedom. As Ron Paul said in Minneapolis, "the Constitution is not a perfect document, but it is a very good one".
> 
> Spooner, if he literally meant what is said in these words, was wrong on this account.


  *Enjoy your delusional fantasy bubble, Federalistbot.* 

*The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
**http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html*

----------


## Matt Collins

> Unfortunately, it's a very defining claim to federal power in the Constitution by Hamilton's twisted interpretation that many have wantonly abused time and time again as you have stated.


Yes, Hamilton was an idiot monarchist.


Regardless, THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE MEANS that everything the government does must be for the general welfare. It's not another grant of power, in fact *it's a limit on federal power*. If the government is going to say, build a road, it must build that road for everyone, not just the elite, or the privileged class as an example. So everything the government does must be for the general welfare, as opposed to the welfare of a specific few.

----------


## foofighter20x

The Taxing and Spending Clause

By yours truly... I covered the GWC pretty in depth.

----------


## micahnelson

The preamble of the constitution should not provide any powers to the government. It only lays out the stated goals of the government that are established in the articles of the constitution. 

For example if I said to a waiter:

In order to provide me with food, I give you the authority to relay my order to the kitchen. 

He can provide me with food, according to the rules established. He can only accomplish this based on the authority granted. He can indicate my order to the kitchen. He may not come up with his own order, take food from someone else table, or start his own restaurant and make my food himself.

If all I had said was "I authorize you to provide food for me", then any means he chooses is valid. The constitution qualifies the preamble. 

Consider the alternative- if the Federal Government was authorized to promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense... etc etc by any means necessary- why have a constitution. The articles and separation of powers would be nothing more than suggestions. 

The Constitution qualifies the Preamble. The Preamble is a general statement of intent, the constitution is a specific means to achieve the goal of the Preamble.

----------


## nate895

> The preamble of the constitution should not provide any powers to the government. It only lays out the stated goals of the government that are established in the articles of the constitution. 
> 
> For example if I said to a waiter:
> 
> In order to provide me with food, I give you the authority to relay my order to the kitchen. 
> 
> He can provide me with food, according to the rules established. He can only accomplish this based on the authority granted. He can indicate my order to the kitchen. He may not come up with his own order, take food from someone else table, or start his own restaurant and make my food himself.
> 
> If all I had said was "I authorize you to provide food for me", then any means he chooses is valid. The constitution qualifies the preamble. 
> ...


The General Welfare clause is in Article I, Section 8.




> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


It isn't a sweeping power. If it is, it is tucked away and would be invalid under contract law, since when the clause was asked about by ratifiers, the framers at ratifying conventions would say that it only meant that the Congress couldn't enact laws to benefit certain segments of the populace, similar to what Matt Collins said. It actually would be grounds to suspend the Constitution and operate under the Articles of Confederation (or no Federal government at all) if it was a sweeping power.

----------


## micahnelson

> The General Welfare clause is in Article I, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a sweeping power. If it is, it is tucked away and would be invalid under contract law, since when the clause was asked about by ratifiers, the framers at ratifying conventions would say that it only meant that the Congress couldn't enact laws to benefit certain segments of the populace, similar to what Matt Collins said. It actually would be grounds to suspend the Constitution and operate under the Articles of Confederation (or no Federal government at all) if it was a sweeping power.





> 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.


I grabbed the wrong general welfare, lol.

----------


## angelatc

> What exactly does it mean? It seems to me to be an open ended invitation to the government to enact any damn program it wants as long as it benefits the nation as a whole. Of course, that got turned into personal and corporate welfare but that's a discussion for another day. So what IS allowable under the general welfare clause? What isn't? I think it is very broad and allows far more than many of us would like or admit is constitutional but it is there for a reason. So what does it mean?


There's a difference between general welfare and specific welfare.

Also, check out the second definition of welfare, found in an 1828 dictionary:

----------


## Matt Collins

> The preamble of the constitution should not provide any powers to the government. It only lays out the stated goals of the government that are established in the articles of the constitution.


Exactly. It's called hortatory language meaning it has no legal effect.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Exactly. It's called hortatory language meaning it has no legal effect.


 *Tell that to the Dumb-o-crats.  *

----------


## micahnelson

> *Tell that to the Dumb-o-crats.  *


The republicans could probably hear it to, regarding the Common Defense clause.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The republicans could probably hear it to, regarding the Common Defense clause.


 *Who keeps on electing these IDIOTS? Oh yeah, never mind ............... it's ONLY the voters.*

----------


## foofighter20x

> The Taxing and Spending Clause
> 
> By yours truly... I covered the GWC pretty in depth.


No comments from anyone on my article of awesomeness? I snuck as many jabs in toward the Hamiltonian view as I could without violating NPOV.

----------


## Danke

> No comments from anyone on my article of awesomeness? I snuck as many jabs in toward the Hamiltonian view as I could without violating NPOV.


You wrote the whole thing?

----------


## foofighter20x

> You wrote the whole thing?


most of it... go look at what it was a year ago before i started...

----------


## Danke

> most of it... go look at what it was a year ago before i started...


How do I do that?  It is a good piece, but I would like to clarify the part about "wages."

----------


## ShowMeLiberty

> No comments from anyone on my article of awesomeness? I snuck as many jabs in toward the Hamiltonian view as I could without violating NPOV.


It was extremely awesome and useful too. Excellent work!

I linked to it on another forum where an Obamabot was defending taxes for "the general welfare", especially scientific research. I told him he was a Federalist and worse, a Hamiltonian Federalist who probably also follows Keynesian economics!

----------


## foofighter20x

> How do I do that?  It is a good piece, but I would like to clarify the part about "wages."


Here's a link to about a year ago...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=173567974

You can look at past versions of any wikipedia article that exists... You just have to hit the history tab at the very tip top of the article whose history you wish to view.

----------


## Dunedain

The general welfare cause is specific to the U.S.A. as a political entity and not THE PEOPLE.  It doesn't say to provide for the general welfare of the people, it says the general welfare of the United States.  Just like it pays the debts of the United States and not the people's debts.

Obviously, providing health-care doesn't add to the general welfare of the political entity call the United States...nor welfare nor any other giveaway to the "the people"

----------


## Uriel999

LOL, that is a phrase in the prologue and is not law. The prologue simply sums up what the material contained in the constitution aims to do.

----------


## slothman

> The general welfare cause is specific to the U.S.A. as a political entity and not THE PEOPLE.  It doesn't say to provide for the general welfare of the people, it says the general welfare of the United States.  Just like it pays the debts of the United States and not the people's debts.
> 
> Obviously, providing health-care doesn't add to the general welfare of the political entity call the United States...nor welfare nor any other giveaway to the "the people"



That is an interesting interpretation(sp) of it.
It might also allow the CIA and even NASA for reasons of defending against Near Earth Asteroids.

----------


## angelatc

> The general welfare cause is specific to the U.S.A. as a political entity and not THE PEOPLE.  It doesn't say to provide for the general welfare of the people, it says the general welfare of the United States.  Just like it pays the debts of the United States and not the people's debts.
> 
> Obviously, providing health-care doesn't add to the general welfare of the political entity call the United States...nor welfare nor any other giveaway to the "the people"


Here's an article that makes a pretty decent case, http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/13.1/, that welfare didn't mean poor relief.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> What exactly does it mean?


* All laws must be in the general welfare of the people of the United States.  Any law that is not in the general welfare of the United States is unconstitutional.  For example, bailouts of large banks are unconstitutional on this ground (among many others).

AND

* All laws must also be enumerated powers, or necessary and proper for carrying out enumerated powers, to be Constitutional.

----------


## axiomata

> * All laws must be in the general welfare of the people of the United States.  Any law that is not in the general welfare of the United States is unconstitutional.  For example, bailouts of large banks are unconstitutional on this ground (among many others).
> 
> AND
> 
> * All laws must also be enumerated powers, or necessary and proper for carrying out enumerated powers, to be Constitutional.


In other words, the General Welfare clause, the favorite clause of redistributionists, actually prohibits the welfare state since such programs are a form of specific welfare (benefiting a specific subset of the population at the expense of a difference subset), the exact opposite of general welfare.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> In other words, the General Welfare clause, the favorite clause of redistributionists, actually prohibits the welfare state since such programs are a form of specific welfare (benefiting a specific subset of the population at the expense of a difference subset), the exact opposite of general welfare.


That's right!

----------


## Scofield

The "General Welfare Clause" has no legal effect.  It is merely part of the preamble to Article I, Section 8.

The way Congress provides for the "General Welfare" is by enforcing the enumerated powers followed below in Article I, Section 8.




> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
> 
> To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
> 
> To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
> ...


The preamble:




> Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


This preamble (where the clause originates) is merely a way of informing Congress what the above (long list of powers) powers are intended to provide for...defense, welfare, pay for debts.  The preamble does not give Congress the power to collect taxes to pay for anything it wants under the guise of providing "general welfare."  I cannot comprehend how anyone could hold the view that the clause allows Congress free reign to spend on anything; it goes against everything the founders ever said.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The "General Welfare Clause" has no legal effect.  It is merely part of the preamble to Article I, Section 8.
> 
> The way Congress provides for the "General Welfare" is by enforcing the enumerated powers followed below in Article I, Section 8.


That's not right.  Any law that is not for the general welfare is unconstitutional.

----------


## Objectivist

> What exactly does it mean? It seems to me to be an open ended invitation to the government to enact any damn program it wants as long as it benefits the nation as a whole. Of course, that got turned into personal and corporate welfare but that's a discussion for another day. So what IS allowable under the general welfare clause? What isn't? I think it is very broad and allows far more than many of us would like or admit is constitutional but it is there for a reason. So what does it mean?


If it was written as it is used today then why didn't the founders enact all the welfare programs we have now? George Washington had wooden teeth and I'm sure he paid for them out of pocket. Then in 1900, 98% of child births happened in the home.... today 98% of child births are in hospital. They did have hospital then and the infant mortality was one in a hundred and now it's one in a hundred-thousand.

General welfare had nothing to do with handouts and government care packages, it was directed towards the well being in the sense that you should not have to look over your shoulder at every corner. To insure the rule of law is one place for the government.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> What exactly does it mean? It seems to me to be an open ended invitation to the government to enact any damn program it wants as long as it benefits the nation as a whole. Of course, that got turned into personal and corporate welfare but that's a discussion for another day. So what IS allowable under the general welfare clause? What isn't? I think it is very broad and allows far more than many of us would like or admit is constitutional but it is there for a reason. So what does it mean?


As far as Im concerned.. there is no general welfare clause.  Its simply part of the preamble... which is just a statement of what the founding fathers set out to do.. the HOW TO do it is the rest of the constitution.

----------


## Objectivist

> As far as Im concerned.. there is no general welfare clause.  Its simply part of the preamble... which is just a statement of what the founding fathers set out to do.. the HOW TO do it is the rest of the constitution.


Actually Mike it is in the COnstitution... we had this conversation yesterday and I pointed back to the "ensure domestic tranquility" coming before anyone else's "welfare".

USC in my sig below.

Article 1 Section 8

----------


## FreeTraveler

If the "General Welfare" and "Interstate Commerce" clauses were meant to grant carte blanc to FedGov, there would have been no reason for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

----------


## foofighter20x

> The "General Welfare Clause" has no legal effect.  It is merely part of the preamble to Article I, Section 8.
> 
> The way Congress provides for the "General Welfare" is by enforcing the enumerated powers followed below in Article I, Section 8.
> 
> The preamble:
> 
> This preamble (where the clause originates) is merely a way of informing Congress what the above (long list of powers) powers are intended to provide for...defense, welfare, pay for debts.  The preamble does not give Congress the power to collect taxes to pay for anything it wants under the guise of providing "general welfare."  I cannot comprehend how anyone could hold the view that the clause allows Congress free reign to spend on anything; it goes against everything the founders ever said.


You are mistaken.

The Preamble is specifically the portion at the very beginning of the Constitution.



> 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.


It's not the first part of Article I, Sec. 8.

You are correct in saying that the Preamble has ZERO legal weight, however, yet there's still TWO mention of the phrase "general welfare" in the Constitution.

The GWC in Art. I, Sec. 8 is a part of the Taxing Power. That clause grants Congress the power to independently raise its own revenues.

The GWC in Art. I, Sec. 8 is itself a qualification upon the Taxing Power. Thereby, Congress may only use the Taxing Power for three specific things:
1. the retirement of federal debt.
2. for meeting the expenses of maintaining the common defense.
3. for meeting the expenses of executing all the other powers delegated to the federal government.
What the GWC in Art. I, Sec. 8 is not is a grant to raise revenues for the purpose of spending however Congress likes.

Unfortunately, most Congress-critters and a few Supreme Court holdings have found to the contrary.

----------


## Jason T

Please post Supreme Court cases interpreting the general welfare clause.

I can only find one: United States v. Butler (1936.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

"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.  It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Patriot123

God, everyone in this topic is arguing over technicalities. Why not look up what the founders agreed on?

Here's an example.

James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee, *"If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once. "*
Source: http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

*"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators.* 
Madison argued that there would be no purpose whatsoever for the enumeration of the particular powers if the general welfare clause was to be broadly interpreted. The Constitution granted authority to the federal government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefit of the general welfare of all the people. This understanding of the Constitution, as described by the Father of the Constitution, has been lost in this century.
Source: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/...guage-mandate/

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not ruled in our favor but in Hamilton's.



> he U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the nationalas opposed to localinterest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds.
> 
> The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.


Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause

----------


## Jason T

Anyone happen to have anything from Benjamin Franklin explaining his view/definition of the phrase general welfare?

From what I gather, it was Franklin who put the term in his proposed Articles for the Articles of Confederation, a revised version some of his articles featuring the term ended up in the final draft of the Articles, and the term carried over from the Articles into the constitution.

In short, if you can nail down one author of the term 'general welfare' in our republican documents, it's Franklin.

----------


## lx43

While looking through a copy of Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language" (published in 1755), one can find a number of interesting definitions that have broad-reaching effects on public policy. Here's two that are quite relevant these days:

General:

1. Comprehending many species or individuals; not special.
*3. Not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations*
5. Public; comprising the whole

*Welfare:

1. Happiness; success; prosperity*

Clearly, these definitions, Constitutionally-speaking, are far different than what the politicians and pundits tell us. The "general Welfare" clause, as stated in the Tenth Amendment Center's 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution, was actually meant as a limit on power - not an excuse to expand it:

The phrase, "general Welfare," in Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to enact any laws it claims are in the "general Welfare" of the United States. The phrase sets forth the requirement that all laws passed by Congress in Pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution shall also be in the general Welfare of the United States. This was affirmed by James Madison when he wrote: "With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Welfare according to 1775 dictionary means happines, success, and prosperity.  It says nothing about wealth redistrubtion.

----------


## The Deacon

> In other words, the General Welfare clause, the favorite clause of redistributionists, actually prohibits the welfare state since such programs are a form of specific welfare (benefiting a specific subset of the population at the expense of a difference subset), the exact opposite of general welfare.


What about the argument that "universal" health care would be accessible to everyone and therefore it _is_ general welfare instead of specific welfare?  I had this point brought against me.

----------


## foofighter20x

> What about the argument that "universal" health care would be accessible to everyone and therefore it _is_ general welfare instead of specific welfare?  I had this point brought against me.


I don't know if this argument has even been used before, but I'd try it:

1. Ask them what exactly the preposition "of the United States" means.
They'll probably stammer at this.
2. Refer them to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 2:



> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


Do this because it obviously reveals that the preposition "of the United States" is interchangeable with "of the federal government" or often simply with dropping the prepositional phrase and adding the adjective "federal" in front of whatever noun it precedes. If they disagree go through the Constitution with them line by line and apply this rule (you can, with most of the appearances)...
3. The only exception to this rule is where the preposition is immediately proceeded by the words "people" or "citizen."
The only reason they are an exception is that, when used in conjunction with a reference to the people or citizens, "of the United States" becomes a constitutional, short-hand reference for the long list composed of the phrases "of the State of Maine, of the State of New Hampshire, etc..."

Really, think about
a) how long the Constitution would be if when referring to the people or citizens that we listed all the member states they are citizens of; and
b) how embarrassing the Framers realized it would be if they included a list of all the people of the member states and then have listed states not ratify and join the Union.
The reason I know this is true is because it's exactly what happened. The final draft of the Preamble started with "We the People of the State of New Hampshire, of the State of Massachusetts, of the State of Rhode Island, etc..." When submitted to the Committee of Style, the Committee realized how embarrassing that list had the potential to become, and devised the short-hand version of "We the People of the United States..." With reference to those specific groups, "of the United States" becomes an umbrella term for the People of the State of X who have ratified the document and joined the Union.
4. It's a long settled legal rule that if the Constitution applies to the people or to the states, it will specifically address itself to those parties. (Remember, the Constitution was meant to restrict the federal government, not the people or the states.)

5. So, we know as a consequence of all this that the phrase "general welfare of the United States" is functionally equivalent to the phrase "general welfare of the federal government."

6. But what would be the meaning of  "general welfare of the federal government"?
Well, since the GWC modifies the Taxing power, it would mean that Congress can tax _so that the federal government can meet its obligations and serve its constituent member states and their citizens and people through the efficient and robust exercise of its other constitutionally enumerated powers._
So, there you go.

----------


## Truth-Bringer

> What exactly does it mean? It seems to me to be an open ended invitation to the government to enact any damn program it wants as long as it benefits the nation as a whole. Of course, that got turned into personal and corporate welfare but that's a discussion for another day. So what IS allowable under the general welfare clause? What isn't? I think it is very broad and allows far more than many of us would like or admit is constitutional but it is there for a reason. So what does it mean?


It means what it meant to the Founders when they wrote it - nothing more, nothing less.  Here are the details to understand the real meaning:

*The "General Welfare" Clause:  What Does It Really Mean?*

By Alan Chapman

There seems to be some disagreement as to what the word "welfare" means with regard to the phrase "general welfare" as it appears in the Constitution. Many on FR use the "general welfare" clause as the basis of their support for government schools and Social Security. I started this thread with the intent to discover the true meaning of the term "welfare" with regard to it's use in the Constitution.

The word "welfare" appears twice in the Constitution. Once in the preamble and again in Article 1, Section 8.

The preamble to the Constitution states:

    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

The preamble is not a delegation of power to the federal government. It is simply a stated purpose.
Article 1, Section 8 states:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

We all know the meaning of words can change over time. In order to more accurately assess the meaning of the word "welfare", with respect to it's use in the Constitution, I consulted a source from that period. I happened to own a reprint of the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language. Here is how the word "welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution.



A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

Furthermore, Article 4, Section 4 states:

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

A Republican form of government is one that is not Democratic. This means that policy cannot be decided based on majority rule. It is impossible to guarantee a Republican form of government and, at the same time, compel people to fund and participate in government programs which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Rest of Article Here

*
    "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794

    "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson*

For years socialists and statists have declared that the government can do anything it wants in the name of the "general welfare."  Clearly, this was deception and fraud on their part.  Here we have the "Father of the Constitution" and the author of the Declaration of Independence clearly explaining that the government has no such right under Constitutional law.

----------

