James Madison, considered “the father” of our constitution, explained in the Federalist Papers no. 41 why the wording in Article I section 8, “provide for the…general welfare,” does not grant congress broad powers as some have interpreted it. This is kind of long, but it is important, so I thought I would include the explanation in its entirety: (bold and italics added for emphasis)
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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
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; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms to raise money for the general welfare.
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? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? 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? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. ” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
PUBLIUS.
Click here for part 1 of this series “Article I Section 8″
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Coming up on March 23rd, 2010 is one of the most important nights of this election year. On caucus night state delegates are elected who will then represent their precincts at the state conventions. The state conventions are where the party candidates are chosen. It is a multiple round ballot system and if a candidate receives 60% of the votes he/she automatically receives the party nomination. There is a lot of talk about the possibility of Senator Bob Bennett being defeated at the convention, so it is important that liberty minded individuals show up to their caucus meeting.
You may have noticed that there has been very little written here on Utah’sRepresentatives.com about Utah’s 3rd congressional district representative Jason Chaffetz. That’s probably because we like him, and he has done very little that we disagree with. The recent release of TSA documents on an incident involving Chaffetz passing through airport security is an exception.
The DVDs sure sound warm and fuzzy but when you realize this is taking away $5 million worth of weapons, equipment, and food from our military, it suddenly doesn’t seem like such a good idea. One Pentagon official said, “
