The longer I am a government teacher, the more I come across people who are either ignorant or misinformed about the history behind our Constitution. They make claims that they know what it means, but they apply modern meanings to defined terms used within the Constitution. The people are at not fault necessarily all the time. Some teacher’s push a political agenda when teaching American History or U.S. Government. Many people have not read any of the founding documents including the constitution itself. I want to clear up the most misunderstood phrase in the Constitution and teach you all the original meaning of this phrase so you will never again misunderstand this part of the Constitution. It is the phrase the general welfare.
The term “general welfare” is twice used in the Constitution. Once in the preamble (promote the general Welfare) and once in the listed powers of the Congress 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 Defense and general Welfare of the United States…). This term is also sometimes replaced with the public welfare or common good in the discussions, debates, and writings of the Founding Fathers and the people who inspired them, like John Locke, and other ancient or enlightenment philosophers. What is the problem with this phrase?
But what does the term General Welfare mean? The term general welfare connects with the ancient philosophy of classical republicanism. This philosophy encapsulates many things, but for our discussion today it refers to promoting the common good or putting the interests of everyone over the benefits of a select group or a few people.
How did our Founders interpret this phrases? Did they mean the expression would allow the government to expand indefinitely? Let’s find out. Let’s have some quotes from the father of the Constitution, James Madison. What did he think the term meant?
“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 creator.”
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
“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.”
If you read these quotes accurately, Madison was saying that the general welfare is not giving the government the authority over every area of life, but only those specific powers listed or enumerated in the Constitution. If there is a person out there who think I am wrong about what Madison is saying or means, please let me know.
Secondly, what did the Federalists Papers say about the term general welfare? These documents are written to defend the Constitution from the detractors in the states also do an excellent job of explaining the intent of this term.
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… 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 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? (Federalists #41)
Alexander Hamilton had a slightly more liberal view of the term general welfare. He has stated in several occasions that the general welfare clause in the taxing clause of the Constitution gives the government authority over almost anything defined as the general welfare. The argument Hamilton makes is that the general welfare clause gives the government an unquestionable ability to do what it wants as long as it is in the general welfare, suitable for everyone. The problem is that he is the only Founder to seem to have that view. Madison, Jefferson, and the whole of the Federalists Papers disagree with him. He even disagrees with himself sometimes as he was the author of many Federalist Papers as well as with this quote:
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
It appears from this quote even Alexander Hamilton was arguing that the general welfare phrase only applies to the powers authorized to Congress in the Constitution. Again we see the founders had a clear view of this phrase even when they seem to contradict themselves.
This argument repeated numerous times by the Federalists at the ratifying conventions is that the powers of the government have limits by those specific powers and authority granted in the Constitution. Federalists delegates in the states made the argument again and again that anything that is not directly or expressly granted to the federal government belongs to the states, which are all-powerful over their citizens.
But what do other founders have to say about the general welfare? Maybe there is some contradiction between the about this ambiguous phrase. Let’s take a look at what Thomas Jefferson said. For the record, he was not even at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 because he was an ambassador to France during that time.
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
The people who say we don’t know what the Founders meant about any particular phrase in the Constitution are just plain wrong, because they fail to do their research about the matter. Originalism does not say that we need to follow the Founder’s intent or views blindly. But how can we say we know what the constitution means if we do not consult what they said about the constitution when it was written, ratified and begun. These words are not expected to be followed blindly but as a reference to what they meant when they wrote it. Should this not be consulted when trying to interpret the document? And if the modern interpretation is in direct contrast with the intent, we must give pause before increase its meaning. Do we not study the context of Plato and Aristotle before interpreting them for our times? Do not good Biblical scholars do the same with passages in the Bible? So why do people avoid doing the research when it comes to an understanding the very document that was built to guide our government, list its powers and oversee its processes? Is it out of their ignorance, laziness or a political agenda? You will have to decide that for yourselves.
One more point about this clearly defined phrase. We can all agree that the general welfare includes the public education of our children, protecting the environment, and other good causes can fall within this phrase. But when it comes to the term in our Constitution, it is not giving the Congress authority over all those areas. The Founders made it clear that the general welfare was only referring to specifically enumerated powers granted within the Constitution, as both Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and the Federalist Papers stated. All those powers that people claim the general welfare encompasses (education, helping the poor, the environment, business regulations, etc.) should fall on the state or local government, or the power and authority belong to the people themselves to decide.
As always I welcome any questions, comments or divergent viewpoints. Sorry for the break from my book summary of Glenn Beck’s “Broke,” but I felt that this topic desperately needed to be addressed given the discussions I have had recently and in the past.
Mr. B Teaches History 
Whether or not I’m correct remains to be seen, but I’ve always read the general welfare clause as the intent to keep the people from having to experience those things listed n the Declaration of Independence, especially since they just got done fighting a war with the king who wouldn’t pay them a ‘hapenny worth of general welfare attention. I like to reference the Declaration as the charter for the government being set up and the Constitution as the by-laws. Now you know.
LikeLike
If the Constitution wording is the ‘intent’ of our Founders then it would only be a Bill and not the Law of the Land. So it is as Madison writes, the Constitution of the United States( all of the wording) is a “Fact of Law”. Before the Clause ‘general Welfare” was used, government powers use the term ‘Common Welfare’. We the People of the United States will promote the general Welfare and Congress will provide for the general Welfare of the United States. Off note here, every Power that is written in the Constitution is Capitalizes and if you look up the definition in the 1828 written by Webster, his words have a lot of meaning about our Constitution. He was alive when the Founders wrote the Constitution. One of the meaning of “Common” by Webster words is “Belonging to the public” or of the subjects and Citizens alike, this is a Power of a Congress or of a legislative Power which governments call Statute which fall on Subjects and Citizens alike. Now take all of the People in the United States, call dreamers and take all of the People of the United States, call the Citizens of the United States. Now which one of these general Welfare of the People can Congress provide for? The founders just limited Congress Statute of the United States, not the State Legislature of each of our State in the Union( note of the 14th) , to only the Citizens of the United States, John S. Mill in his book call the ‘Representative Government’, Chapter 17. So when you use the Clause “General Welfare”, a general term, you can refer it to a Family, Church, business, School but also the Congress of the United States, the State Legislature and of a City, or just a State of people in their Political form( read #57 of the Federalist paper and Article 1 section2). Because were does any of these Legislature gets their money from? By Taxing the Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Duties, Imposts and Excises is a tax on Article of Value. Another subject at another time. Where do Business or Corporation get their money from? by changing a Fee or to sale Articles of Value. So the Fees and a Taxes have the same Action to it, which is carried out by different powers of the People, Political or Civil. So the question now is this, Do we have the Liberty to help or pay others by our Political means or our Civil Means? Do we get Tax or do we get Change a Fee for the service?( Health Care Act). And their is a limited on who get money out of OUR Treasury of the United States, which is overlook, in Article 1 section 6.1. So read the whole Clause “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. Schools and Business are under our State jurisdiction. Still it is the People of the United States that is to promote the general Welfare of the United States of America. Now it has a different meaning to it ?
LikeLike
Doe the “general welfare” apply to providing emergency relief to those affected by natural disasters, such as that in the panhandle of FL? That is clearly not enumerated in the Constitution, yet, we have federal agencies that do exactly that. What do you suppose Madison would say about that?
LikeLike
Since those bills only effect those effected by the disaster, I would think Madison would disagree with them. There should be local emergency funding, private charity,and personal insurance that solves these problems.
LikeLike
Mr. Bulava is right, but Madison would might have said, by what is in the Constitution and is not in the Constitution( the Facts of Law) is that States, Citizens of the States, can by their power of government can take a Loan out from the Treasury of the United States, there is no Limits on a Loan. You see in Article 1 section 6.1 you have “Senator and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services” and ‘Compensation’ by Webster words of 1828 refers to as “2. In law, a set-off; the payment of a debt by a credit of equal amount.” See as People of the United States we set up a Debt to pay for our Senators and Representatives by this Clause. Now ask the question what debt did we set up to pay for natural disasters? we set up the Congress to “7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;” once it is establish the debt does not come from the Treasury of the United States , so in Nixon years of President he pass a bill call ‘The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970′( because of corruption in the post office) which made us( postal employers) Independence from the Treasury of the United States which should have been set up already, we as People of the United States still pay the fees of the Postal employers by the sales of stamps. As People of the United States in each of the State we set up the Treasury of the United State, Congress can provide for the general Welfare of each of the State and just as a Bank who pays for their Members who are employed with them, can Bank not Loan out the Money to others outside of the Bank? This is why we do not need a Federal Bank, which Madison dissolve the Bank Act and then reinstate again but dissolve it again. This is apart of history you can look up. And who money is it anyway but the People of the United State who are the Citizens of the Untied States and of the State wherein they reside. And as a Citizen of the State we can borrow against our Life Insurance Policy, but why would you? Because you have to pay back your Money with interest . And this leads to Mr. Bulava point. Why would you borrow your own Money? See Congress is making a Claim( Article 4 section 3.2) against the People of the United States with this Clause. “provide for the …..general Welfare of the United States” to set up Departments for Disaster, which it feels good, but Congress can not arbitrary set up Departments of the United States when we the People of the United States are setting up States to be Independent from one another? That is the hard part of this Constitution, we grow up thinking we are ONE, which we are, but we are Independent as Citizen of the State. This Constitution was Pass by the People of the United States in their State Form of Government which makes this a State Law and not a Federal Law, as Jefferson wrote “Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government.” Our attachment of the Union comes from the passing by each of the13th State is the Declaration of Independence and the new State that follow was the Northwest Ordinance. A union of People is a Confederation. in 1828 Webster wrote “2. The United States of America are sometimes called the confederation” Sorry it should have be a short answers but I was trying to using our Constitution of the United States to explain. We still can help in others ways.
LikeLike
I have to correct something, the Declaration of Independence was pass by the People who Representative themselves in the 13th States. If you look at the original Document you see no State names by their names. and is one of quotes by John Q. Adam on the Declaration of Independence. This is why the Constitution starts as WE the People of the United States. And the new Congress has the Power of the People by this Constitution( a Law) but not by their own Power as People of the United States. This why we have a House of Representative and not a House of the Commons in England.
LikeLike
Where does Jefferson say “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act the…”
It would help my argument tremendously
LikeLike
“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not [. . .] place under their action”
http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/2031
LikeLike
On this issues of “the general Welfare”, I guess this has been going on until the Supreme Court rule the Clause “General Welfare” refers to the People, is this right to say? And the letter of Tomas Jefferson was dated on 1817, so was the 13th and the 14th dated after 1817? So the answer I have been trying to show people is that you are talking about the Common Welfare of America,” All Persons born or Naturalized in the United States”, and the general Welfare of America who are the Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they Reside? If congress can only provide for the general Welfare of the United States then which group of people can congress provide for? Persons in the United States or the persons of the United States? And can Congress provide anything to a Corporation, a Legal person in Law that is created and not born or Naturalized in the United States.? In 1862 John S. Mill wrote a Book on “Representative Government” refers that our Constitution only applies to the Citizens of the United States and not the just Persons in the United States. So was the issue solve by the passing of the 13th and the 14th amendment or are we to believe that these Amendments only apply to the Free Slaves and not all Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside? Boy, this is hard to change the minds of people who have learn that the 13th and 14th only apply to the Citizens of Africa at the time of the Civil War. These People did not come to America on their own Free Will, which they were concerned still Subjects or Citizens of Africa. They did not give up their Rights to be Africans. Like we did in 1776.
LikeLike
Question? What is the deference between the study of Political Socialization and Political Science?
Is the study of the Constitution for the United States of America of these laws just stay in the boundaries of Political Science( the study of understanding of how power is arranged), and as a Voter of a State do I not have a place in this Political Socialization which gives me a title of a “Elector”, which in turn I am now subject to the Jurisdiction thereof? So by the definitions of a Political Socialization Article 1 section 2 refer me, the voter, the one who is to choose, a Elector of my State. So the ones of the United States who has the power to “Lay and Collect a Tax” are the members of Congress, again I ask who gave the Members in the IRS the power to Lay and Collect a Tax from the People of the United States, the governed, in America the Right of Power? This is why everyone looks at me funny because I am looking at the Constitution of the understanding of Political Socialization and not just Political Science, meaning just a guild line of forming a government. If you are subject to the jurisdiction then you enter in the political society for the United States of America. Benjamin Franklin quote on this Constitution: “The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION is the “process by which individuals learn and frequently internalize a political lens framing their perceptions of how power is arranged and how the world around them is (and should be) organized; those perceptions, in turn, shape and define individuals’ definitions of who they are and how they should behave in the political and economic institutions in which they live. POLITICAL SCIENCE, occasionally called politology, is a social science which deals with systems of governance, and the analysis of political activities, political thoughts, associated constitutions and political behavior. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” Aga
LikeLike
Hamilton Was at the Constitutional Convention.
Jefferson was ambassador to France and couldn’t be there.
LikeLike
I miss read the text. You didn’t say that
LikeLike