SmallGovTimes.com

By: Steve Adcock | Published on 07/13/06    

The Constitution seems to be a fickle entity in today's society. With the creation and subsequent support of big federal government programs like Social Security, minimum wage, welfare, Medicare and almost every feel-good government program, every big government supporter seems to rationalize away the Constitutionality of these programs with two words, "General Welfare". Even a casual study of the creation of our nation unconditionally proves the fallacy of that belief.

The term "General Welfare" is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution: the Preamble ("...promote the general Welfare"), and Article I, Section 8 ("...to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"). What, then, does the term "General Welfare" actually mean? Does it give the government the power to do virtually anything it wants?

Big government supporters have taken that phrase to essentially give the government any power it wants, assuming that power can somehow be linked back to some ill-conceived sense of public good. It must be okay for the federal government to collect Social Security from the American people, right? Welfare is certainly within the bounds of the Constitution, isn't it? Minimum wage is definitely covered by "General Welfare", agreed?

The problem stems from our instinctive nature to interpret things in such a way where they fall in line with what we want to believe. If you believe that the government should establish a base pay for every worker in the United States, then you will probably interpret the General Welfare clause to support such a policy. After all, you certainly would not want to think of yourself as supporting an unconstitutional policy, would you?

To truly understand what our founding fathers meant by the term "General Welfare", it is imperative that we look back into history and uncover what they actually said. Thomas Jefferson, who played an integral part in our nation's foundation, said this:

"Our tenet ever was ... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated;"

-- Thus, according to Thomas Jefferson, "General Welfare" refers to specifically what is defined within the Constitution. It is not some "be-all-end-all" phrase that essentially makes the Constitution's restrictions on the federal government meaningless.

Thomas Jefferson goes on to say:

"...and that, as it was never meant that 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."

-- Jefferson was quite a thinker! He recognized the possibility of using "General Welfare" towards extremes and reinforces the fact that the specific limiting of federal government powers that the Constitution provides means something.

But, let's not stop at T.J. James Madison, another integral founder of our nation and Constitution, had this to say about the "General Welfare" phrase:

"Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms 'common defense and general welfare' embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust."

Madison also voiced:

"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."

It is quite clear, then, by the very words of our founders, that the phrase "General Welfare" in no way, shape or form authorizes the federal government to usurp the very limitations penned in the Constitution, provided those usurpations can be rationalized away as providing for the "General Welfare". According to our founders, "General Welfare" is specifically and intentionally defined by the articles and amendments within the Constitution, not defined by loose interpretation by those from either side of the political aisle.

Taken to the natural (and eventual) extreme, almost all federal government power can, in some way or another, be rationalized away as providing for the "General Welfare". Heck, socialism falls into the category, and in some ways, communism can as well. If left to the interpretation by those who depend on the government for either their power or their very livelihood, the U.S. Constitution will certainly become completely and entirely meaningless. After all, everything that the federal government is involved in ultimately provides for the "General Welfare", right?

According to the very words of our founding fathers, our federal government is outrageously unconstitutional. Returning our government to a small and protective entity will ensure our freedom into the future, save taxpayers many billions of dollars and, of course, returns a long lost obedience from our federal government to the Constitution of the United States.

Original URL:
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/06jul13.general.welfare/index.html