It is one of introductory principles upon which the American Constitution is based:
Preamble -- constitutionus.com
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is one of the reasons given, for Congress to "collect Taxes," again in the American Constitution, Article 1 -- Section 8:
Section 8 -- constitutionus.com
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
But, What is the General Welfare? What does that catch-all phrase entail? And what does it not?
Well, it seems like THAT has been a debate that has been going on, nearly as long as the Constitution itself. Much of what we argue about now, regarding the functions and limitations of Government -- they argued about back then, when our Constitutional "experiment" was just beginning ...
General Welfare -- legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction -- the limitation of federal power -- eventually inspired important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
[...]
Here is a brief summary of that landmark case, that decided who was right about "promoting the General Welfare" -- Madison or Hamilton?
from onelbriefs.com:
U.S. v. Butler -- SCOTUS - 1936
Facts
• The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 declared that, due to a crisis in agricultural production, the Secretary of Agriculture could set limits on production of certain crops and impose taxes on production in excess of these limits.
• The AAA also authorized grants to farmers to control production and thus regulate prices.
Procedural History
• SCOTUS held for Butler, AAA unconstitutional.
[...]
Holding/Rule
• Congress has broad authority to tax and spend for the general welfare, and is not limited to taxing and spending only to carry out powers specifically enumerated in Article I.
Reasoning
• Article 1, § 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare."
• "To provide for the general welfare" qualifies the power "to lay and collect taxes."
• The meaning of this phrase has always been debated.
-- Madison always said it just referred to the other powers enumerated in the section and so therefore the power to tax was confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to Congress. It is a mere tautology.
-- Hamilton, however, maintained that the clause confers separate and distinct power, and so Congress has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
• The second meaning, advocated by Justice Story, is the correct one. While the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not those of section 8, which bestow and define the legislative powers of Congress.
-- The power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public money for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
• Another principle in the Constitution, however, prohibits the enforcement of the AAA. The act invades the reserved rights of the states, since it controls agricultural production.
-- The taxes are means to an unconstitutional end.
-- Congress has no power to regulate production, therefore it cannot indirectly accomplish regulation through taxing and spending.
[...]
But look closely --
that other principle the 1936 Roberts Court used to strike down the authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, was its over-reach in terms of the Tenth Amendment. Not its intent to promote the public good.
Although, they discussed the Madison vs Hamilton views on the General Welfare Clause in depth -- it was not the basis of the constraint they just put on the Federal Government's tinkering with Farming outputs. Rather the Court saw setting Farming Production goals as being a "local issue" (ie. a state's issue) -- and as such beyond the authority of the Federal Government to micro-manage.
To find out what U.S. v. Butler (via Justice Story's writings) DID say about the "not limited" reach of this guiding principle called promoting the General Welfare ... well like with the long, long history of this fragile experiment with Democracy -- you'll just have to keep reading ...
First a brief interlude, about WHY you should care about this "General Welfare Debate." If you care about things like safety standards, like the Minimum Wage, like nationalizing Health Care, things like maintaining the New Deal -- well be aware that Ten Amendment advocates are gearing up to dismantle those "Federal Overreach" programs, one public "welfare" service at a time. If they ever get the chance ...
from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
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.
[...]
During the depth of the Great Depression, the Tenth Amendment returned to a dormant condition. President Franklin Roosevelt worked with Congress to pass the New Deal, a series of programs designed to stimulate the troubled economy. After the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the National Labor Relations Act (mandatory Collective Bargaining) in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L. Ed. 893 (1937), Congress began exercising unprecedented lawmaking power over state and local matters. For the next 40 years, the Supreme Court upheld congressional authority to regulate a variety of matters that had been traditionally addressed by state legislatures. For example, in one case the Supreme Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1281 et seq.) over objections that it allowed Congress to regulate individuals who produced and consumed their own foodstuffs entirely within the confines of a family farm (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 [1942]).
The Tenth Amendment enjoyed a brief resurgence in 1976 when the Supreme Court held that the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201 et seq.) to state and local governments was unconstitutional. In National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1976), the Court said that the Minimum Wage and maximum hour provisions of this act significantly altered and displaced the states' abilities to structure employment relationships in such areas as fire prevention, police protection, sanitation, public health, and parks and recreation. These services, the Court emphasized, are historically reserved to state and local governments. If Congress may withdraw from the states the authority to make such fundamental employment decisions, the Court concluded, "there would be little left of the states' separate and independent existence," or of the Tenth Amendment.
National League of Cities proved to be an unworkable constitutional precedent. It cast doubt on congressional authority to regulate many aspects of local affairs that most of society had come to rely upon. It was unclear, for example, whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a federal agency established by Congress to regulate workplace safety, retained any constitutional authority after the Supreme Court announced its decision in National League of Cities.
[...]
Now back to the Madison vs Hamilton Debate -- if anyone should know what "promoting the general Welfare" means, THEY should. Afterall they were among the Founding Debaters who wrote it.
SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE -- law.cornell.edu
Scope of the Power
The grant of power to “provide . . . for the general welfare” raises a two–fold question: How may Congress provide for “the general welfare” and what is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[531] The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted,[532] Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;[533] Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.[534] From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies[535] and for an ever increasing variety of “internal improvements”[536] constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.[537] Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, sums of money apportioned among the States for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient State, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to its use, have become commonplace.
[...]
Finally, in United States v. Butler,[543] the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: “Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”[544]
[...]
What was the Hamilton position again, concerning the meaning of "promoting the general welfare"?
-- Hamilton, however, maintained that the clause confers separate and distinct power, and so Congress has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
Justice Story seems to have weighed heavily on that definitive Supreme Court ruling that
found in favor of the "broad liberal" (Hamilton) interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. So what else did that precedent-setting
Owen Roberts ruling have to say about their "constitutional oracle," Justice
Joseph Story -- and his unique Founding Fathers perspective?
United States v. Butler -- law.cornell.edu
297 U.S. 1
United States v. Butler (No. 401)
Argued: December 9, 10, 1935
Decided: January 6, 1936
[...]
ROBERTS, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we must determine whether certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933, [n1] conflict with the Federal Constitution.
[...] Mr. Justice Story points out that, if it were adopted, it is obvious that, under color of the generality of the words, to "provide for the common defence and general welfare," the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers. [n11]
The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted [by Article I, § 8, of the Constitution] is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation's debts and making provision for the general welfare.
Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States.
The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money. How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument?
Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. [...] This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction {Madison vs Hamilton}. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations.
As Story says:
The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers. [n13]
Again, he says:
A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not, in common sense, a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them. [n14]
That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his [p67] well known Report on Manufactures, states that the purpose must be "general, and not local." [n15] Monroe, an advocate of Hamilton's doctrine, wrote:
Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not. [n16]
Story says that, if the tax be not proposed for the common defence or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. [n17] And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.
[...]
We are not now required to ascertain the scope of the phrase "general welfare of the United States," or to determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture falls within it. Wholly apart from that question, another principle embedded in our Constitution prohibits the enforcement of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. [n18] The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.
[...]
If you find yourself leaning into the Hamilton camp, thinking that the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution,
was meant to be more than just Constitutional 'window dressing' -- well you should know you are among some learned company (in addition to 1936 Supreme Court) ...
The Constitution: The General Welfare Clause Study Guide
by Intellectual Takeout
[...]
• Alexander Hamilton was one of the most ardent supporters of the General Welfare Clause. Following the adoption of the Constitution, he used the Clause to support federal regulation of manufacturing and the creation of a National Bank.
• Washington supported Hamilton’s view of the Clause. In his Farewell Address, he argued that federal intervention in private markets is beneficial to the entire nation, using agriculture and manufacturing as examples.
• Hamilton’s stance on the General Welfare Clause was ultimately solidified by Chief Justice John Marshall in his opinion on McCulloch v. Maryland, which affirmed the constitutionality for Congress to create a national bank.
I've always thought the General Welfare Clause empowered Congress to attempt to build and maintain a "better society." That's one of their KEY Missions -- you know build parks and bridges, roads and waterlines, communications and utilities; promote quality standards for Air, Water and Food. Health resources for people in Need. Job resources for people out of work. Educational resources for curious kids. Libraries and Labs and lots of guidance. (Unless of course these societal needs can be adequately met, with just local resources.)
-- but then again I'm not a lawyer, a judge, nor even a congressman. I'm just some schlub who reads things for their "plain literal meaning" ... things like the Constitution and the Preamble that "confers" it, with its "plainly spoken" Mission Statements.
But what do I know. I just want to one day see "that better world" ... or at least the fledgling beginning of one, for those who will carry the torch forward, long after this idealist liberal is gone ... and the grand experiment, has somehow re-found its broad "We the People" footing ...
=
=
=
= =
=
=
=
=
= =
=
=
=
=
=
Well, thanks for taking the time. I've love to hear your thought's on the Madison vs Hamilton debate, and which one of them do you think "really won"?
And if the mission of the Tenth really trumps the missions of the Preamble, then where do the "limits" of National Welfare end, and the unmet needs of Local Welfare begin?
Inquiring citizens should want to know.