Perhaps no greater damage has been done to our Republic through a twisting of the Constitution by unscrupulous politicians than the claim that the so-called “general welfare” clause authorizes the central government to spend money on anything and everything they deem to be within the description of these two words. The phrase occurs twice in the Constitution ─ in the Preamble, and in Article I, Section 8 ─ and perhaps the fact of its repetition is what the advocates of a large centralized government rely upon as the strength of their argument in expanding the control of the government into our lives by its profligate spending.
The Preamble to the Constitution reads:
“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” [emphasis added].
As a preamble’s purpose is to set forth the purpose of a document, its general framework, it is argued that the purpose of establishing the central government was to do whatever deemed necessary to “promote the general Welfare.” This “truth” is furthermore argued to be buttressed by the empowerment statement in the opening sentence of Article I, Section 8:
“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;” [emphasis added].
What is most telling about how dangerous this phrase was viewed by those states who seceded and formed the Confederate States of America, is amplified in the wording of its Constitution, which was in most parts a mirror image of the US Constitution. That these states had a constitutional right to secede from the Union will have to wait for another discussion, but note the glaring omission in the preamble of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America:
“WE, the People of the [United States] Confederated States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a [more perfect Union] permanent Federal government, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility [provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the [United] Confederate States of America. “
The phrases in italics are what they added to the preamble of the US Constitution, and those enclosed in brackets were the words or phrases they omitted. Most notably absent was the phrase under consideration in this essay, namely, “to promote the General Welfare.” Compare again the wording of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution with Section 8 of the CS Constitution:
“The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, for revenue necessary to pay the Debts [and], provide for the common Defence [and general Welfare of the United States; but], and carry on the government of the Confederate States;“
What was it that these states saw in this phrase that would prompt them to omit it from theirs? The answer is quite simple ─ they saw the havoc it was causing to the system of republicanism upon which the country had originally been founded. I need not delve into how even greater havoc has been unleashed upon us in the century and a half since their attempted secession. During the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, those who opposed its usage warned of the danger posed by the twisting of this phrase in eroding our freedom and liberties. Most notable among those who issued this warning, though he did support the Constitution’s ratification, was that great champion of republicanism, freedom and liberties, namely, Thomas Jefferson. In the remainder of this essay, I will share with you quite a number of quotes from these patriot founders so that you may see what they foresaw as the angst we groan under today.
In-as-much as I began this current series of essays on the topic of taxation, allow me to begin these quotes with one from the Antifederalist writing under the pseudonym “Centinel”. In an essay published on October 5, 1787, he points out that this phrase will give the central government the power to levy any and all kinds of taxes, to dictate the taxes that states may levy, and use force of arms (which Alexander Hamilton did use in 1791, but today is done through the intimidation of the IRS) to collect taxes, just so they can spend it on whatever program suits its fancy:
“The celebrated Montesquieu established it as a maxim, that legislation necessarily follows the power of taxation….and all external objects of revenue, such as unlimited imposts upon imports, etc. ─ they are to be vested with every species of internal taxation;─ whatever taxes, duties and excises that they may deem requisite for the general welfare, may be imposed on the citizens of these states, levied by the officers of Congress, distributed through every district in America; and the collection would be enforced by the standing army, however grievous or improper they may be. The Congress may construe every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes, to be for the general welfare, and thereby seize upon every object of revenue.”
In this same essay, Centinel continued to argue the merits of federalism which would mitigate against the general government from using this argument of “general welfare” to expands its power because those things most needed for the general welfare of the citizens would be best served by the state and local governments:
“If one general government could be instituted and maintained on principles of freedom, it would not be so competent to attend to the various local concerns and wants, of every particular district, as well as the peculiar governments, who are nearer the scene, and possessed of superior means of information;”
Contrast Centinel’s comments above with the impossibility of what those who twist the meaning of this phrase in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ─ that this was to be for “the general welfare of the United States.” The word “general” implies a broad, all-encompassing concept, applicable to a majority, which in this case includes the entire United States! Yet, the task involved in providing the multitude of items by our central government for which this phrase has been used as justification is utterly impossible due to its sheer magnitude. In November 1963, Nathaniel Branden wrote in a short essay on “Capitalism’s Practicality”:
“…the more complex an economy, the greater the number of choices and decisions that have to be made ─ and, therefore, the more blatantly impracticable it becomes for this process to be taken over by a central government authority.”
This echoes the principle repeatedly argued by F.A. Hayek in a number of his works. Given the expansiveness of a society (such as that of the United States), it is impossible for any one individual or group of individuals to adequately effect the central planning in behalf of that entire society because it is impossible for them to know all of the facts necessary to make the proper decisions and plans.
Foreshadowing this principle argued by Branden and Hayek was another Anti-Federalist who wrote under the pseudonym “The Federal Farmer.” In arguing against the states being swallowed up into one centralized government under the proposed Constitution, he stated:
“…that one government and general legislature alone, never can extend equal benefits to all parts of the United States: Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be unreasonably invaded.”
In other words, what might be construed as a matter of “general welfare” in one part of the country (or by some states) would not of necessity be so considered by another part (or other states). Consider some of the more hotly debated issues of our time ─ gun control, socialized health care, illegal immigration ─ the difference in viewpoints varies considerably both in viewpoint and intensity from one region or state to another.
When the Pennsylvania Convention ratified the Constitution on December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23, those who had opposed the ratification issued a “Minority Report” in which they warned that the central government being created by the Constitution would eventually use these broad clauses such as “general welfare” to pass just about any law it pleased:
“The Congress might gloss over this conduct by construing every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes, to be for the ‘general welfare,’ and therefore as of their jurisdiction.”
I ask, has this dire prediction not come to pass in our day and time? Have not the states become the mere vassals of the central government obliged to do its bidding in order to continue to receive the financial crumbs thrown to them ─ crumbs that came from the bread produced by and taken from the mouths of the very citizens of the states? Later in their report this minority went on to decry how this would ultimately destroy individual responsibility, industry, and self-reliance:
“Miserable is the lot of that people whose every concern depends on the WILL AND PLEASURE of their rulers.”
Yes, indeed! How miserable we have become, have we not?! Today, to whom does the majority of our populace turn to for help and assistance with almost every one of life’s necessities? Is it not our central government in Washington, D.C.? Not surprisingly the rulers and bureaucrats of our central government happily oblige these requests in return for the support of these slaves in keeping them in power.
This point was eloquently expounded by one of the most articulate of the Anti-Federalists, Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym “Brutus”. In his essay published on October 18, 1787, he wrote:
“The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance ─ there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to free men, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution of laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given….there is no limitation to this power unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation; 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,…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“ [emphasis added].
He went on a little later in his essay to state that (in regards to the phrases in the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution):
“The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing of almost any law“ [emphasis added].
Re-read the parts of these quotes I have emphasized and ask yourself if what we see today by the “progressives” in Congress and the Obama Administration are not in fact doing exactly what Yates said they would do all the while claiming Constitutional authority for their actions!
Such a claim to power is an absurd abstraction that will be arbitrarily applied by whichever group holds the reins of power at any given time. Once more, I give you the erudite commentary of Brutus, written on December 27, 1787:
“…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. ‘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….
It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of this power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves” [emphasis added].
So I ask you ─ when you survey the intrusiveness into our lives by this monolithic Minotaur called our “Federal Government”, accompanied by its minions of bureaucracies and their unaccountable agents spewing forth repressive regulation upon repressive regulation, all of which is purportedly for our “general welfare” ─ which Constitution “Got it right? The US Constitution or the Constitution of the Confederacy?” I would submit to you, in viewing the damage done to our freedom and liberties under the cover of the phrase “provide for the…general welfare”, on at least this one point, the Confederates “got it right.”
- Epaminondas
