article 1 section 8

[OohPooPahDoo]

when wingnuts fly:

He led the Annapolis Convention, which successfully influenced Congress to issue a call for the Philadelphia Convention in order to create a new constitution. He was an active participant at Philadelphia and helped achieve ratification by writing 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers, which supported the new constitution and to this day is the single most important source for Constitutional interpretation. Alexander Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

even Wikipedia is not silly enough to claim Alexander Hamilton as Madison's principle co-Author of the US Constitution. but Pooh-shit-pants-bahahaha, has called others morons

I never made that claim you twat. I said they were both AUTHORS - not that they were "the principle authors" You're a fucking LIAR

 

[Dick Tuck]

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

you were just calling people morons and you are the biggest moron here: Who wrote the US Constitution? :even Answers R US knows better than you.

Answer:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.

Here is more input from other WikiAnswers contributors:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

----

Hamilton was NO author of the US Constitution. Dope

Jefferson wasn't even in the country at the time. He was in France looking for loans, and witnessing the French Revolution. That certainly made him rethink his "blood of patriots" line. At least he had the opportunity to talk in length to Franklin.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

1: 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;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

What did they originally mean by the term "General Welfare"

As a person who feels the constitution should be read and interpreted according to its original intent

"With respect to the two 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 in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"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, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined. This differs from most modern interpretations including your own!

Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders and they were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. However another founder, Alexander Hamilton, saw it in a little differently.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore nconstitutional.



So, to use the founder's own opinions to answer your original question, the congress does not have the power to tax and spend for any social program they see fit according to the founders and the original intent of the constitution.

...then you are wrong on too many counts to list here.

Read other posts: Founders/Framers/Ratifiers

The Constitution itself has no intent as it is only a document.

Madison argued that to interpret the Constitution, yes interpretation...one would have to look for the meanings and intent of the ratifiers.

The Constitutional Convention (the Framers NOT the Founders) meeting in secret...

...purposefully sent the document out to be ratified by the people and not the state legislatures. Up or down vote. No debate on changes...ratify up or down.

It wasn't my own words, it was the words of the actual founders.

Are you saying the founders didn't mean what they wrote when they wrote what I quoted them as saying above?


Also

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.. as in the union.. not each and every individual and their personal needs...

Taking the statement completely, it is easy to understand

Have to agree with Dave on this one. Strictly speaking, I've always thought it was meant to be the welfare of the country, and not the welfare of the citizenry. Same with defense, of the country, but it's not the Government's job to defend me at all times from all threats.

That's incorrect.

A "country" is an abstract concept and a concept that includes populating the "country" with citizens.

Thus the general welfare clause explicitly refers to the citizenry..

Actually he is correct as the power of the govt to tax and spend for the general welfare was specifically enumerated as follows

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 an 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;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes... "General welfare of the United States" when written in 1776, was not referring to Government blocks of free cheese.

The Constitution wasn't written in 1776 you fucking moron.

We still have a federalist system. Hamilton won. Suggesting we do not have a federalist system anymore is silly

I don't think I suggested that at all, I simply pointed out that the principle author of the constitution made it clear what the clause meant, the Federalist view notwithstanding. You and I both know that is why we have a Supreme Court and since the 30's that view has prevailed, that said it does not mean those views will not or never change.

The Constitution didn't have a "principle author"

Hamilton did not agree with Madison. Why should Hamilton's view be rejected in favor of Madison?

That's actually a pretty good question.

I hope that you can see that an answer to same requires, first, an understanding of the differences between the concepts of Originalism, and that of a 'living Constitution.'


Then, one chooses which is correct.
With understanding and exposure to debate on both sides, your opinion becomes the answer to your question.

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.



Ours doesn't have the force of law.

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

Again...once informed, your opinion, or mine, is as valid as any lawyer or Justice.

Ours doesn't have the force of law.

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

Nope. They were the main authors of the Federalist Essays...articles in newspapers.

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

you were just calling people morons and you are the biggest moron here: Who wrote the US Constitution? :even Answers R US knows better than you.

Answer:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.

Here is more input from other WikiAnswers contributors:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

----

Hamilton was NO author of the US Constitution. Dope

I don't think I suggested that at all, I simply pointed out that the principle author of the constitution made it clear what the clause meant, the Federalist view notwithstanding. You and I both know that is why we have a Supreme Court and since the 30's that view has prevailed, that said it does not mean those views will not or never change.

The Constitution didn't have a "principle author"

and Hamilton was not an author.

stop calling other people morons

go away

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

you were just calling people morons and you are the biggest moron here: Who wrote the US Constitution? :even Answers R US knows better than you.

Answer:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.

Here is more input from other WikiAnswers contributors:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

----

Hamilton was NO author of the US Constitution. Dope

Uhh, HELLO, Hamilton was at and participated in the Constitutional Convention!

The Constitution didn't have a "principle author"

and Hamilton was not an author.

stop calling other people morons

go away

He wasn't an EDITOR - everyone at the Constitutional Convention was an AUTHOR.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They were also both authors of the Constitution.

Jeezums

you were just calling people morons and you are the biggest moron here: Who wrote the US Constitution? :even Answers R US knows better than you.

Answer:
A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

Jacob Shallus who, at the time, was assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania State Assembly, and whose office was in the same building in which the Convention was held, was given the task of engrossing the Constitution prior to its being signed.

Here is more input from other WikiAnswers contributors:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

----

Hamilton was NO author of the US Constitution. Dope

Jefferson wasn't even in the country at the time. He was in France looking for loans, and witnessing the French Revolution. That certainly made him rethink his "blood of patriots" line. At least he had the opportunity to talk in length to Franklin.

Jefferson was a kook when it came to the French Massacre Revolution. Only in his old age did he walk back. Many of his friends and peers thought he was nuts on that subject.

There were a few founders, colonial revolutionaries who admired the French slaughter...but they were mostly anti-Federalists who favored direct democracy -- the mobocracy -- over representative democracy under a Federal Republic

 

[Pho_King]

when wingnuts fly:

He led the Annapolis Convention, which successfully influenced Congress to issue a call for the Philadelphia Convention in order to create a new constitution. He was an active participant at Philadelphia and helped achieve ratification by writing 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers, which supported the new constitution and to this day is the single most important source for Constitutional interpretation. Alexander Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

even Wikipedia is not silly enough to claim Alexander Hamilton as Madison's principle co-Author of the US Constitution. but Pooh-shit-pants-bahahaha, has called others morons

I never made that claim you twat. I said they were both AUTHORS - not that they were "the principle authors" You're a fucking LIAR

Damn. Here's something you don't see everyday. Two retarded OWS parasites arguing with each other!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes... "General welfare of the United States" when written in 1776, was not referring to Government blocks of free cheese.

The Constitution wasn't written in 1776 you fucking moron.

and Hamilton was not an author.

stop calling other people morons

go away

He wasn't an EDITOR - everyone at the Constitutional Convention was an AUTHOR.

Thanks for posting my entire posting history in this thread - that way other posters can see for themselves I never said Hamilton and Madison were "the principle authors" of the Constitution, as you have wrongfully claimed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What did they originally mean by the term "General Welfare"

As a person who feels the constitution should be read and interpreted according to its original intent...

...then you are wrong on too many counts to list here.

Read other posts: Founders/Framers/Ratifiers

The Constitution itself has no intent as it is only a document.

Madison argued that to interpret the Constitution, yes interpretation...one would have to look for the meanings and intent of the ratifiers.

The Constitutional Convention (the Framers NOT the Founders) meeting in secret...

...purposefully sent the document out to be ratified by the people and not the state legislatures. Up or down vote. No debate on changes...ratify up or down.

It wasn't my own words, it was the words of the actual founders.

Are you saying the founders didn't mean what they wrote when they wrote what I quoted them as saying above?

When discussing interpretation:
Madison wrote on more than one occasion that people should NOT look to the intent and meanings understood by the framers, but instead to look to the understanding of meanings and the intent of the ratifiers.

The Framers met in secret. They kept no record. Madison kept his own, sometimes, self serving notes. They refused to allow the state governments the opportunity to debate or ratify the document. They instead sent out the document with instructions for an up or down vote...sent to the people...the people ratified the Constitution.

What the Framers meant and understood has always been open to interpretation .. from day one. But the real test is what did the people who ratified the Constitution understand and intend? What did the ratifiers intend? What did they, the people, the ultimate source of legitimacy intend?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thanks for posting my entire posting history in this thread - that way other posters can see for themselves I never said Hamilton and Madison were "the principle authors" of the Constitution, as you have wrongfully claimed.

If you insist on being completely literal, Madison didn't "write" the Constitution either.

If you insist on being completely literal, you didn't use the word 'principle' you just claimed Hamilton was a main author of the US Constitution

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Damn...

...here's something you see every day. A dipshit suffering delusions of relevancy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I said they were both AUTHORS ...

wrong. they were not both authors. link to where anyone but you claims Hamilton as an author of the US Constitution

Advocate for Strong Central Government
Hamilton did not attend the entire four-month Constitutional Convention that began in May 1787 in Philadelphia. He had been one of the strongest advocates for that convention, but he was outvoted by the other two New York delegates, who did not share Hamilton's enthusiasm for a strong federal government to unite the thirteen states. In these early years after the revolution, the former colonists were just beginning to understand how to operate outside the confines of British rule.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/hamilton/peopleevents/e_federalist.html

 

[onecut39]

Time to leave. As per usual we are down to calling each other douchbags and assholes.

Nice to hear the children at play.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

...then you are wrong on too many counts to list here.

Read other posts: Founders/Framers/Ratifiers

The Constitution itself has no intent as it is only a document.

Madison argued that to interpret the Constitution, yes interpretation...one would have to look for the meanings and intent of the ratifiers.

The Constitutional Convention (the Framers NOT the Founders) meeting in secret...

...purposefully sent the document out to be ratified by the people and not the state legislatures. Up or down vote. No debate on changes...ratify up or down.

It wasn't my own words, it was the words of the actual founders.

Are you saying the founders didn't mean what they wrote when they wrote what I quoted them as saying above?

When discussing interpretation:
Madison wrote on more than one occasion that people should NOT look to the intent and meanings understood by the framers, but instead to look to the understanding of meanings and the intent of the ratifiers.

The Framers met in secret. They kept no record. Madison kept his own, sometimes, self serving notes. They refused to allow the state governments the opportunity to debate or ratify the document. They instead sent out the document with instructions for an up or down vote...sent to the people...the people ratified the Constitution.

What the Framers meant and understood has always been open to interpretation .. from day one. But the real test is what did the people who ratified the Constitution understand and intend? What did the ratifiers intend? What did they, the people, the ultimate source of legitimacy intend?

Which is why I used their actual words instead of my own interpretations of them. You never answered me.

 

[The T]

Damn...

...here's something you see every day. A dipshit suffering delusions of relevancy.

Yeah we do...Everytime YOU post.

 

[jillian]

"With respect to the two 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

Seems simple enough, when taken in context.

but the phrase is 'general welfare of the United States' - 'of' - general welfare of - of who/whom?

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

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

James Madision Fed. 41

"general welfare," as used in the Constitution, is defined by the enumerated powers listed directly afterward, nothing more and nothing less.

i think part of the problem is treating the federalist papers as if they are law. they aren't. our law is comprised of statute and our caselaw. and our caselaw, going back hundreds of years, does not limit what congress is able to do in accordance with the general welfare clause... EXCEPT as to those things which are the sole province of the states.

but the reality is that the supremacy clause, taken together with the general welfare clause and the way they've been construed by caselaw pretty much end any argument against governmental action

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It wasn't my own words, it was the words of the actual founders.

Are you saying the founders didn't mean what they wrote when they wrote what I quoted them as saying above?

When discussing interpretation:
Madison wrote on more than one occasion that people should NOT look to the intent and meanings understood by the framers, but instead to look to the understanding of meanings and the intent of the ratifiers.

The Framers met in secret. They kept no record. Madison kept his own, sometimes, self serving notes. They refused to allow the state governments the opportunity to debate or ratify the document. They instead sent out the document with instructions for an up or down vote...sent to the people...the people ratified the Constitution.

What the Framers meant and understood has always been open to interpretation .. from day one. But the real test is what did the people who ratified the Constitution understand and intend? What did the ratifiers intend? What did they, the people, the ultimate source of legitimacy intend?

Which is why I used their actual words instead of my own interpretations of them. You never answered me.

What the framers meant when they wrote the draft has never been agreed upon by the framers themselves. No records/minutes were kept. We do not know what they meant when they met in secret.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Time to leave. As per usual we are down to calling each other douchbags and assholes.

Nice to hear the children at play.

you're wrong. it's one ...two of the trolls. stop exaggerating. ignore them. All I did was put Oohpapoppypants out of his misery. and his size 5 fonts

 

[regent]

Well, when all is said and done, the only thing that holds true is Justice Hughes statement:
"We are under a Constitution but the Constitution is what the justices say it is."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When discussing interpretation:
Madison wrote on more than one occasion that people should NOT look to the intent and meanings understood by the framers, but instead to look to the understanding of meanings and the intent of the ratifiers.

The Framers met in secret. They kept no record. Madison kept his own, sometimes, self serving notes. They refused to allow the state governments the opportunity to debate or ratify the document. They instead sent out the document with instructions for an up or down vote...sent to the people...the people ratified the Constitution.

What the Framers meant and understood has always been open to interpretation .. from day one. But the real test is what did the people who ratified the Constitution understand and intend? What did the ratifiers intend? What did they, the people, the ultimate source of legitimacy intend?

Which is why I used their actual words instead of my own interpretations of them. You never answered me.

What the framers meant when they wrote the draft has never been agreed upon by the framers themselves. No records/minutes were kept. We do not know what they meant when they met in secret.

Actually we can now come back to my first post in this thread again, it includes quotes from one of the constitutions own authors on what article 1, section 8 is all about.

This is a question for the strict constitutionalists who believe we take the constitution literally, exactly as written.

Section 8 of Article 1 in known as the "enumerated powers" section. Here is where the various powers granted the congress are spelled out. The first article in that section is quoted, verbatim, below.

Section 8

1: 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;

Taking that literally, strictly as written, how does that limit the power of congress to legislate on any social program it chooses so long as it provides for the "general welfare"?

It is quite simple. The founders were educated and very literate. How can you interpret that any other way? Remember though, you are not supposed to interpret, you are to take it literally.

What did they originally mean by the term "General Welfare"

As a person who feels the constitution should be read and interpreted according to its original intent this is a specific question I've pondered a lot. Here is what I have to say.

"With respect to the two 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 in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"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, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined. This differs from most modern interpretations including your own!

Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders and they were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. However another founder, Alexander Hamilton, saw it in a little differently.

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore nconstitutional.



So, to use the founder's own opinions to answer your original question, the congress does not have the power to tax and spend for any social program they see fit according to the founders and the original intent of the constitution.


Also look into what the rest of section 8 goes on to say, it is obvious they were talking about foreign affairs when they used the term general welfare and not domestic policies.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear OPPD: All human beings are governed by natural laws, which the constitutional laws reflect. you cannot get away from the laws of human nature, any more than you can the laws of gravity or physics. By natural laws, people make and enforce social contracts and agreements by informed consent, by free will, by conscience. If you don't have the people's consent, the natural reaction is to protest and petition to amend revoke or change the policy that is opposed. You can impose or enforce laws by coercion against free will, but the more you do so, the more the equal and opposite reaction ensues to compel reform until the grievances are redressed and the conflicts are resolved FREELY.

so no matter what citation or interpretation you argue by the letter, if in spirit people do not consent to be governed by a certain policy or party, those people will not accept your argument. True consensus on policy is reached by free will, by mutual respect for law, that is just human nature, and I've never met a single soul who didn't operate this way!!!

Hamilton did not agree with Madison. Why should Hamilton's view be rejected in favor of Madison?

That's actually a pretty good question.

I hope that you can see that an answer to same requires, first, an understanding of the differences between the concepts of Originalism, and that of a 'living Constitution.'


Then, one chooses which is correct.
With understanding and exposure to debate on both sides, your opinion becomes the answer to your question.

Both Hamilton and Madison were original authors of the Constitution, so you can't choose which view to accept based on which is the original view.

Again...once informed, your opinion, or mine, is as valid as any lawyer or Justice.

Ours doesn't have the force of law.

When people form an agreement by consensus, that is what carries authority of law.
The just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.

PS consent of the governed also applies to my interpretation of Constitutional laws as reflecting universal laws of governance that apply to all people by our human nature. if you do not agree with me that laws should be based on consent of the governed and the people retain the inalienable right to petition for redress of grievances until conflicts are resolved by due process, you have every right to submit to govt rule by forceful coercion and bullying. but people who are able to govern themselves without relying on the state imposing order from the topdown should not have to remain subject to such tactics because of people who do require this because they don't respect others equally under law. you get the govt you enforce, so I choose to seek govt by informed consent not force. you are free to pursue whatever standards of govt you wish to enforce, but please do not impose that interpretation on me if my standards of governance by consent are higher than rule by threat of larger force.