In 1792, Madison was responding to Hamilton’s new expanded version. That is why he issued the warning you referenced. Even though the all powerful central government guys lost the debate in the Convention, they never gave up. Every chance they got they pushed for expanded interpretations. I find it interesting that Madison, who endorsed the Virginia Plan in the Convention, would attack Hamilton for advancing an expanded interpretation if Hamilton’s version was the correct one.

I also find Hamilton’s broad interpretation in direct conflict with his earlier writings in The Federalist. Hamilton’s statement from No. 83, concerning the legislative powers granted to Congress, tends to support Madison’s interpretation of the “general welfare” clause:

“The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars 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.”

Hamilton’s interpretation of the general welfare provision was so radical that Thomas Jefferson told President Washington that many were questioning whether “we live under a limited or unlimited government.”

Looks like we are still asking that question today.

You said,

Following the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the intent and scope of the general welfare phrase REMAINED part of the political debate. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton in January of 1792, James Madison wrote:

“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.”

During a congressional debate on February 7, 1792, Madison WARNED:

“[I]f 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 for 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…”

I used all CAPS to emphasize the words you used. Now, that you are asserting you think it was all settled in 1788, I ask why the issue sprung so quickly that by at least as early as Jabuary 1792, this issue was being discussed.

I really don’t know the answer and don’t want to presume I know the history in that short episode of time, but I’d venture to say that with all the players involved in ratification, and the markedly different philosophies that were clearly prevalent just after, that this issue WAS an issue at the time of ratification. I have doubts that the federalists developed their philosophy of national government as a RESULT of ratification. I think it was their philosophy all along, and there must have clearly been disparate understandings at the time of ratification. SOMEBODY must have raised this issue before ratification.

“If Congress can determine what constitutes the General Welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be offered by money? How few objects are there which money cannot accomplish? …What are the consequences? Congress can pass no law for the general advancement of religion, of learning, and of charity, wherever these laws are so framed as that they cannot be executed through the instrumentality of money, but Congress may pass laws for the erection and endowment of churches, colleges, and hospitals, because they could be carried into execution by the appropriation of money. Can it be conceived that the great and wise men who devised our Constitution…should have failed so egregiously…as to grant a power which rendered restrictions upon power practically unavailing?”

Drayton foresaw the same potential for abuse Madison expressed years earlier. It should be noted that Madison never wavered from his original interpretation of the general welfare provision. In December of 1831, five years before his death he wrote:

“Beginning with the great question growing out of the terms ‘common defence and general welfare,’ my early opinion expressed in The Federalist, limiting the phrase to the specified powers, has been adhered to on every occasion which has called for a test of it.”

Jeff I think it was well settled in the minds of those who wrote the Constitution. Remember Hamilton left the Convention after the proponents of a national government lost the debate and the word “national” was removed from the resolutions and replaced with the word “federal.”

We should not lose sight of the fact that the general welfare phrase, as it appears in the Constitution, can be traced to the Articles of Confederation. The third article of the Confederation stated:

“The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…”

This article, which was in the nature of a preamble or introductory clause rather than a grant of power, stated that one of the objects of the union between the several States was their general welfare. From the above definitions, the general welfare phrase, as it was used in the Articles of Confederation, meant “the common or general well being of the States.”

The general welfare phrase also appeared in the eighth article:

“All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury…”

This provision granted “the united states, in congress assembled,” the power to pay various expenses out of a common treasury.

Since the general welfare phrase was extracted from the Articles and used exactly the same way in both documents, I doubt if there was any uncertainty as to the true meaning of these words at the time the Constitution was adopted.

“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.”

During a congressional debate on February 7, 1792, Madison warned:

“[I]f 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 for 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…”

Sound familiar?

As Michael stated above, Hamilton’s version went way beyond what his Federalist friends had crafted in the Convention. At least Madison had the character to attack Hamilton’s expansion of power.

The most succinct and accurate interpretation of the general welfare provision, in my opinion, was the one espoused by Thomas Jefferson in 1792:

“I suppose its meaning to be that Congress may collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare, in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare.”

Under this interpretation, Congress would have virtually unlimited power to tax and appropriate “money in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare.” Not only would this interpretation be in total harmony with the structure of the Constitution, but it would also conform to the principles of limited government and enumerated powers. It would leave the federal government with the means necessary to fund every exigency requiring money where the Constitution empowers Congress to act for the general welfare of the United States.

That said, I will refer to the examples in the article to make my argument that even bicycle trails and foreign birth control programs can be for the “general Welfare.”

First, as to bicycle trails, any American who wants to go ride a bicycle trail in the Grand Canyon can do so. The fact that it is in a particular location does not mean it is NOT for the “general Welfare.” To make these such expenditures even more “general,” we can have MANY such projects scattered all throughout the U.S. That way, everyone “generally” gets a little welfare.

As to foreign birth control programs, one might say that our charity to foreign nations is for our “general Welfare” because it builds alliances.

Therefore, while I respect the argument made in the article, it seems obvious that “big government” proponents can easily argue that the things on which money is spent is for the “general Welfare.” So, all you get is an argument back and forth, and the same-old, worn-out, tired pork-barrel politics.

I think the early comment in the article makes more sense and is a more astute construction. “general Welfare” is DESCRIPTIVE of the enumerated powers that follow. If this was not the case, then why didn’t the framers just stop at the “general Welfare” phrase? If “general Welfare” had any independent significance at all, it would obviously render every single one of the enumerated powers as mere SURPLUSAGE.

Why would anyone have to list powers to declare war, coin money, regulate trade among the states, make bankruptcy laws, and so forth? If Article I, Section 8, stated “Congress can lay taxes and make appropriations for the general Welfare,” that would have been enough, by itself. I doubt anyone has argued that the specifically-enumerated powers are NOT for the “general Welfare” and therefore, had to be added.

So, in my opinion, if “general Welfare” was something different than the enumerated powers, then, by definition, the enumerated powers are not for the “general Welfare.” If “general Welfare” includes the enumerated powers, then there was no need to make a long list of enumerated powers. The list would add NOTHING to the powers already granted under the “general Welfare” phrase.

Therefore, there are only two other options I see left. One is that you could imply that the introductory sentence in Article I, Section 8 has the phrase or meaning, “including but not limited to,” in it. That way, it could be construed that “Congress shall have the power to collect taxes and make appropriations for the gneral Welfare, including but not limited to…. [enumerated powers].” This is what I think is the implicit assumption being made in the article above.

Though this form of grammar is often used, strict constructionists tend to want to avoid assuming “including but not limited to” in such a document because it tends to make specific provisions become unnecessary surplusage with no independent legal significance. In other words, even though people often use the phrase, “including but not limited to,” what they are really saying is all of the listed things that follow are a SUBSET of the general object that precedes them. They really are not necessary to list, but they are listed out of caution to be sure the general object preceding them is not construed in such a way as to preclude the list that follows. It is difficult to argue against this point.

The only other construction I see is that “general Welfare” was only a phrase that was descriptive of the powers that followed. It is basically an adjective and not an object. It has no legal significance of its own. Why I find this argument more convincing is because: (1) honestly, I have a bias in my goal as to what I’d like to see in government, and (2) I have doubts that the people would have ratified the Constitution had it given Congress the power to tax and spend for anything it thought was in the “general Welfare.”

That construction seems to me to be far too broad and sweeping, and I have reluctance to think the people were ready to cede that much authority to a federal government just a handful of years after a bloody war was fought against another central government that they thought was too abusive and powerful.