Connor’s Conundrums » General Welfare

blog

General Welfare

Posted by Connor on October 8th, 2007

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

One of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses in the Constitution is found in the preamble, which states that the Constitution was ordained and established “in Order to … promote the general Welfare”.

What is general welfare? What does this phrase empower the government to do? Has the interpretation of this phrase changed since the era of the Founders?

The phrase, proposed by Benjamin Franklin to the Second Continental Congress in 1775, was originally implemented in the Articles of Confederation, as follows:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…

While such a stipulation was provided, the government was not given power to raise funds to actually secure the general welfare, and thus the provision lacked power and funding. And so, when the Constitution was created, Congress was given power in Article I Section 8 to raise funds for such a purpose:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.

To understand the phrase better, it is also important to define the word using the vernacular of the time. The 1828 Webster’s dictionary lists two definitions for welfare: one to be applied to persons, and one to states (political bodies). As the Constitution was written to list the government’s powers and restrictions, the definition for states must be used, which reads:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.

Note that the definition closely links welfare to protection (from unusual evil or calamity) and security (peace and prosperity). This stands in contrast with the current definition according to Webster’s dictionary:

Aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need; an agency or program through which such aid is distributed.

The difference between the two definitions is striking; indeed, they are wholly disparate. This etymological evolution was commented on by Noah Webster himself (the man responsible for the 1828 dictionary):

In the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, … obscure the sense of the original languages…. The effect of these changes is that some words are not understood … and being now used in a sense different from that which they had … present wrong signification of the false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced… mistakes may be very injurious. (Noah Webster, via Quoty)

Once the original intent and definition of the “general welfare” clause is understood, it is important to observe how the phrase can be Constitutionally implemented. James Madison commented on this as follows:

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. (James Madison, via Quoty)

Madison here refers to the enumeration of powers, the specific list of items stated in the Constitution for which the government is given authority. All other powers not mentioned are denied to the government, as the twelfth amendment declares:

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.

And so, Madison here clarifies that the “general welfare” clause holds no power outside of the specific items government is given power, in the Constitution, to control and regulate. Thomas Jefferson likewise agreed:

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. (Thomas Jefferson, via Quoty)

The government, then, is not authorized to collect taxes nor enforce the redistribution of wealth (when applied to the modern definition of “welfare”) unless the object of their desire is found in the powers enumerated unto them. Such limited powers is a hallmark of a Republican government, as Madison stated:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)

One must always remember that the Constitution was written for our government, and therefore the “general welfare” it refers to is that of the government itself, not of individual citizens. The Founders of this nation never intended for Uncle Sam to become a dole-dishing agent of wealth redistribution, and the fact that our government serves this role today shows how far we have strayed from the object and design of the Constitution.

Possibly related posts:

6 comments so far. Care to chime in?

My understanding is that general welfare benefits everyone, equally. That’s why it says, the common defense and general welfare. Food stamps, Medicare, and other similar entitlements are not general welfare, but specific or special welfare. That is not what I believe was the intent of the preamble.

Since you mentioned the preamble, I believe that what is even more misunderstood, and worse yet, deleted from most texts, is the preamble to the Bill of Rights. None of my children’s school books have had it. Private schools don’t usually teach it. I don’t think that most home schools teach it. More people need to be aware of it and its intent.

Jay

#1 Jay on October 8th, 2007

Davy Crockett served for nine years in Congress before he was killed at the Alamo in 1836. During the time of his congressional service, there was a fire in Georgetown, which he and many other Congressmen helped to put out. The next day, Congress voted to appropriate $20,000 for the victims who had their homes destroyed. Crockett voted for it but was soon afterward scolded by one of his constituents (Horatio Bunce) for using other people’s money as charity. He challenged Crockett to find where in the constitution Congress was allowed to do this and Crockett admitted he could not find it. He returned to Congress and was faced with another similar situation of giving a substantial sum of money to a widow of a distinguished naval officer who had just died. Crockett took the floor with these remarks:

“Mr. Speaker, I have as much…sympathy as…any man in the House, but Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money….Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” Edward S. Ellis, The life of Colonel David Crockett…(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884), pp. 138-39.

The bill was defeated, but none of the Congressmen took Crockett up on his offer. This story reminds me so much of this incident.

#2 Carissa on October 9th, 2007

Carissa,

That’s a great story I love to read repeatedly. The longer version can be found here.

#3 Connor on October 9th, 2007

Hi Carissa,

I’ve been a follower of Ron Paul since 1988 but I had never heard that story about him. Thank you so much! It was great and it reinforces to me what a principled man he is.

Jay

#4 Jay on October 9th, 2007

I think that “USA” ought to stand for “United Socialist America,” just so there’s no confusion……;-)

#5 Josh Williams on October 10th, 2007

Maybe we can think this way. If today’s Governments have so many problems, maybe it would be best if we just had individual self governance. Meaning with no central government and the only government that is, is yourself. Or, the Common Man helping the Common Man. Think about it , do you really need someone else, other than your concience telling you what to do, when, where and how? Why can’t we ALL live as common human beings that get along with each other. Bam! no boarders, nationalities, flags, nor one being better than the other. I kind of see that concept as the political Kingdom of God on Earth. Isn’t the Kingdom of God a Government? Does this Kingdom have boarders or anything else that separates each other from another? If not, what in the world is the Kingdom of God? Or is it a Kingdom that everyone judges everyone and strict laws are enforced, like going to jail because one drank coffee or got a tatoo? Please someone explain to me how the Kingdom of God is going to be, compared to any Government or Institution that we have upon this Earth.

#6 Aaron on November 1st, 2007