Every once in a while I tell about one of my historical treasure hunts. Hereโs another:
When the Constitution was being debated, Anti-Federalists warned that it contained insufficient safeguards against an overweening government. They asserted that some constitutional language could be twisted by unscrupulous advocates of โbig governmentโ to justify centralized federal power. The argument was not necessarily that the Constitution really authorized centralized federal powerโjust that its language was vulnerable to abuse by โsophistryโ (a Greek term referring to superficially plausible but deceitful arguments).
One Anti-Federalist who expressed that concern wrote under the name of โTimoleon,โ a fourth-century BCE Greek statesman and military hero. (The founding generation was well-educated in the Greco-Roman classics, which helps explains their political success.) The real identity of the Anti-Federalist โTimoleonโ is so far unknown.
To illustrate his point about how big-government sophists could abuse the Constitutionโs language, โTimoleonโ wrote a fictional legal opinion, in which a future judge allowed Congress to adopt any laws it wished.
The โopinionโ claimed that unlimited congressional power was merely an incident of congressional authority to โtax . . . for the general Welfare.โ (โTimoleonโ was a good prophet; โprogressiveโ judges and law professors have done much the same, but have used the Commerce Clause as well as the General Welfare Clause.) An excerpt from the Timoleon โjudicial opinionโ appears below this post.
The opinion of Timoleonโs fictional judge contains the maximย qui dat finem dat media ad finem necessaria, which means โHe who gives the end (i.e., goal) gives the means necessary to the end.โ I was curious about where this maxim came from, since it does not appear in 17th or 18th century English or American law books. Eventually, I found it in the writings of Algernon Sidney, a late 17th century English republican much lionized by the American Founders.
But if it doesnโt appear in English law books, where did Sidney get it? He said it came from Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the Dutch genius who largely created modern international law. And there is a passage vaguely reminiscent of the maxim in Grotiusโs writings. But it really is too different to be the source.
Get the 2nd Edition Today!
Recently, however, I was reading a 1691 English translation of Samuel Pufendorfโs work on natural law and human duties (De Officio Hominis et Civis). Pufendorf, who lived from 1632 to 1694, was a German jurist whose book was another favorite of the American founding generation. Like most other learned Europeans of his time, Pufendorf wrote in Latin.ย In the English edition I came across this passage: โโฆHe who commands the End, must be supposed to command likewise the Means necessary to the said End.โ (Book II, chapter 6).
That looked suspiciously likeย qui dat finem dat media ad finem necessaria, so I looked for a Latin version of Pufendorfโs book. Thatโs not particularly easy to find these days. When I uncovered one, I rushed to the place, and foundย qui jubet finem, jubere etiam censeatur media ad finem necessariaโwhich you can render into modern English as โwho orders an end should be deemed also to order the means necessary to the end.โ
Close enough. Mystery solved. Sidney really had gotten the maxim from Pufendorf, not from Grotius. But Sidneyโs memory had played a trick on him. This is understandable, since Grotius and Pufendorf were easy to mix up in hindsight: Both were civilian jurists who wrote in Latin on somewhat similar subjects. Timoleon could have gotten the maxim directly from Pufendorf or from Sidneyโboth were popular at the timeโbut he probably got it from Sidney since Timoleonโs variation is exactly the same is Sidneyโs.
****
This is some of what Timoleonโs fictional judge says:
By this power the right of taxing is co-extensive with the general welfare, and the general welfare is as unlimitted [sic] as actions and things are that may disturb or benefit that general welfare.ย A right being given to tax for the general welfare, as necessarily includes a power of protecting, defending, and promoting it by all such laws and means as are fitted to that end; for,ย qui dat finem dat media ad finem necessaria, who gives the end gives the means necessary to obtain the end.ย The Constitution must be so construed as not to involve an absurdity, which would clearly follow from allowing the end and denying the means.ย A right of taxing for the general welfare being the highest and most important mode of providing for it, cannot be supposed to exclude inferior modes of effecting the same purpose, because the rule of law is, that,ย omne majus continct [sic— should be continet] in se minus. [“Everything larger contains the lesser within itself.”- RGN]
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.
- How the Founders Explained Limits on the Federal Government - January 21, 2026
- The Constitution and the Trump Tariffs - December 7, 2025
- Ancient Rome and the Constitution - October 29, 2025