The general welfare clause is not a carte blache authority for government to create federal programs and raise money through taxes to pay for them because of a perceived need or desire by the people or politicians. The argument put forth by the Federalists (see Federalist 41) was that the “general Welfare” only pertained to those functions clearly and specifically listed in Article I.
Since the Federalists won that argument as denoted by the fact that the Constitution was ratified, it is the definition that we must abide by since the Constitution has not been otherwise amended to change this. To do otherwise puts us in clear violation of the Constitution by default.
Some will try to make a poor attempt at claiming the “general Welfare” clause is much broader by citing Alexander Hamilton’s position and belief that it was. However a proper reading of the arguments for and against the Constitution shows that he is in the vast minority of people who thought such. The arguments over the Constitution were basically between those that claimed it was too broad as written and should be rejected without additional safeguards and those that claimed that it was limited in scope as written and needed no additional safeguards.
Few claimed that it was too broad and as such that it was a good thing! So the Hamiltonian view is properly discredited just as one would discredit the vast minority of people that believe the Earth is still flat. Fine - they believe it, but they are not in the right.
Loading ...