Misunderstanding the Preamble to the Constitution

happily-retired

You pretty much put a stop to this one.

As far as the other clause that you wanted to bring up - do you know what the founders meant by "general Welfare"? Which 18th Century law dictionary are you referring to for an understanding of the definitions of those words?

The same question can be asked of you, since you seem to think you have some special understanding that the general public does not have.

Interpreting what the Constitution means has been the job of the Supreme Court since the Constitution went into effect.

Now, if you are like Scalia, who thinks the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change unless it involves the election of a Republican to the Presidency rather than a Democrat, then you would look at an 18th Century law dictionary, but the rest of the world looks at latest case on the topic from the Court to see what tortured logic they used to come up with the answer to that burning issue.

Happily - first, this post is about the PREAMBLE - and the absolute fact that it and of itself is not a grant of power.

I understood you to be referencing the constitutionality of the phrase "general welfare", when it is used withing the aforementioned article.

As far as the other clause that you wanted to bring up - do you know what the founders meant by "general Welfare"?

Interesting point, as I am not that old. I do know that there was a great deal of disagreement about the structure of the government and in those cases the founding fathers agreed to disagree and provide some means for future generations to decide the fate of the nation.

Which 18th Century law dictionary are you referring to for an understanding of the definitions of those words? Please advise.

That would be Article 5 of the Constitution. Maybe this will help you understand the ability to change the constitution and why it was necessary.... Then and now

In post #3, Madison is quoted, regarding "general welfare". If we are truly interested in using Madison's interpretation going forward, then we must also consider it going backward.....

Madison -"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Article I, Section 8,

The Congress shall have the Power To … raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

We quoted Madison, but this was Madison as well.....

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. 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.(Federalist Papers - 41)

Madison was referring to the anti-federalist, such as in this Quote from Anti-Federalist Papers, Brutus #1.....

but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please

It should be noted that Brutus specifically asked for examples of things that would be considered General Welfare and/or common Defense. Madison did a dance around that question, with his response. As is rather common on Newsvine, he used the old "elitist dismissal" tactic.

We can quote Madison and talk about what he meant, but then there are his very actions that contradict those statements. He was specifically asked to give examples and Madison dodged the question with "no stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction"

He could not or would not provide an answer to a very serious question. The barn door was left wide open as a result. Was that really his intention from the beginning, regardless of what he said. History seems to indicate that to be the case.

I take leave with this excerpt from Brutus #6...

But it is said, by some of the advocates of this system, "That the idea that Congress can levy taxes at pleasure, is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported: that the preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the union, and the assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice, &c. to provide for the common defence, &c. will be unconstitutional. Besides, in the very clause which gives the power of levying duties and taxes, the purposes to which the money shall be appropriated, are specified, viz. to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare."¹ I would ask those, who reason thus, to define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defence and general welfare? Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same cases by every one? No one will pretend they will. It will then be matter of opinion, what tends to the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter. To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who advocate this new constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the general welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same principle; and I have no doubt but a number on both sides are honest in their professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the general welfare.

It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, and general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, &c. at will and pleasure.

Remember Brutus was anti-federalist...... Madison was a federalist

Correction.... at the time of writing the Federalist papers, Madison was a federalist. By 1791, he exhibited anti-federalist tendencies and was appalled at the machinations of Hamilton and the creation of a European style of government, complete with bureaucracy, standing army and strong executive leadership. By the end of his 2nd term, he clearly had again shifted positions and was strong in favor of the federalist positions.

To summarize.... He chided the anti-federalists for views that could not possibly be true, regarding the "general welfare and common defense clause", then realized that those views were accurate and then finally embraced the potential of a federal government and the need for a strong central government which was provided by the clause "general welfare and common defense."

Previously I made reference to Madison's supposed flip flop on the term "General Welfare". In fact it would not be unrealistic to consider that Madison full well used such vague references and fanciful dismissals to ensure that a strong Federal Government was established.

His fellow Federalist and one of Madison's principal cohorts in the writing of the Federalist Papers, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1791...

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

This is directly opposite of the opinion put forth by Madison only 4 years earlier and was used to promote the establishment of the National Bank. This being done with the full support of the President.... George Washington. (Benjamin Franklin had a wide view of the term "general welfare" as well).

happily-retired,

The fact that the National Bank was signed into law does not mean that it was constitutional. The Alien and Sedition Act, a blantant violation of the first amendment, was also signed into law by the Federalists. These unconstitutional usurpations of power by the Federalists were answered in 1800, with the Federalists losing large numbers of Congressional seats, as well as the Presidency to Thomas Jefferson, who opposed the Alien and Sedition Act on First amendment grounds and the Bank bill on Tenth amendment grounds.

Given the contention over ratification, and the demand that it include a Bill of Rights (which Alexander Hamilton opposed) to limit the federal government, I cannot imagine any scenario in which enough states would have ratified the Constitution knowing that the general welfare clause would be used to grant unlimited power to Federal government, reducing the states to litte more than defacto administative counties in a national government. That is clearly not what the states signed up for.

I cannot imagine any scenario in which enough states would have ratified the Constitution knowing that the general welfare clause would be used to grant unlimited power to Federal government, reducing the states to litte more than defacto administative counties in a national government. That is clearly not what the states signed up for.

You may not wish to imagine it, but it did happen. Now whether it was due to the trickery of Madison and Hamilton, can be disputed. The states were fully and specifically warned about the obvious potential. So obvious that we can now look back and easily state that the anti-federalists were absolutely correct. Despite all this, the states still ratified the constitution in June, 1788. The persistent clamor regarding the rights of individuals by the anti-federalist resulted in the Bill of Rights, which were fully ratified on 12-15-1791.

At issue is what our forefathers had knowledge of, etc. They had knowledge and even used what the anti-federalist had warned about.

Hamilton used the general welfare clause to get the elected leaders from each state to charter the 1st national bank. Washington personally lead a standing army, provided by the common defence clause, to suppress the whiskey rebellion in 1794. That was in the 18th century. Oh yes, to fund the national bank, taxes were to be imposed on whiskey. Such a tax was considered very detrimental to the southern states and thus Jefferson and Madison opposed the national bank.

Madison became president after Jefferson and served from March 1809 - March 1817. During this period the 2nd national bank was chartered.

Again, we may not wish to imagine that our forefathers would do what they actually did and may even wish to believe that there was some trickery involved. That would suggest that our forefathers were simpletons, which rather flies against all they accomplished.

No... they knew... and they did....... from the beginning. Significant historical revisions would be required to achieve a differing result.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Is it your position that each of the 13 states ratified the Constitution with the full understanding that the general welfare clause would be used to reduce the states to nothing more than administrative units answering to an all-powerful national government?

Is it your position that each of the 13 states ratified the Constitution with the full understanding that the general welfare clause would be used to reduce the states to nothing more than administrative units answering to an all-powerful national government?

Not sure what you mean by my position. The Anti-federalists opposed the constitution being ratified and listed their concerns and reasoning. Those concerns included the potential for misuse of the terms "general Welfare" and "common Defense". The 13 states ratified the constitution, knowing full well the positions and concerns of the anti-federalists. What the anti-federalists warned about, began to take place as early as 1791. That's not a position statement, as that is what happened.

Just voting for the Constitution and replacing the Articles of the Confederation was a signal by the states that they were willing to relinquish significant powers to the federal government.