The General Welfare Clause:  Not An Open Ended Grant of Power

It is hardly debatable that The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the greatest documents ever written.   It is in the interpretation of the document where the debate begins.  When interpreting any historical document, the accepted standard is to discern the original intent of the writer or writers of the document in the context in which it was written and there is only one meaning for any written document.  In recent years, the Constitution has been given a new twist by being dubbed “a living document”, meaning that it is ever changing with the times.  This, of course, is in direct opposition to the logic that exists when considering Article V, which provides for amending the Constitution when changes are deemed necessary.  

One of the most often and destructive misinterpretations is that of the general welfare clause.  By regarding it as an open ended statement which includes anything that would benefit the general welfare of the people, it is often used as the basis the federal government uses to steal our money through taxation and apply it to such ridiculous purposes as the writers of the Constitution could have never dreamed.  Even we would shudder if we only knew the details of the extent of this abuse.  Clearly it is not an open ended statement as is evidenced by the construction of the language.  As stated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, the general welfare clause is part of a general statement which is followed by specific conditions related to that statement.  In other words, only the powers specifically stated in regards to that clause are legitimate powers of the federal government of the United States.  This relationship of the general preface language, which includes the general welfare clause, to the subsequent, specific language of the powers is summarized and punctuated by the Father of  The Constitution himself, James Madison as follows: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?"(3)

The misuse and abuse of the meaning of the clause has been going on for years, gradually at first so as to almost go unnoticed, but year after year the federal government takes a little more of our resources and a little more of our freedoms.  Adding it all up, what seemed at first a petty theft now amounts to grand larceny.  (Browne 1)

How far we have strayed from the original intent of the writers of  The Constitution is almost beyond comprehension and for the most part, I believe, awareness of this fact is non-existent.  Consider this story about a meeting between Col. Davy Crockett, a Congressman from Tennessee from 1826-1834, and one of his constituents, a backwoods farmer.  The story tells how Crockett rides up to this farmer, Horatio Bunce, as he was plowing his field to ask for his vote in the upcoming election.  Crockett had already served one term as Congressman and Mr. Bunce informed Crockett that he would not vote for him again.  The reason, he said was that Davy Crockett had voted to appropriate funds from the U.S. treasury to aid victims of a fire in Georgetown.  This took Crockett by surprise and he stated to Mr. Bunce that the amount was so small and the treasury so full that he hardly thought this would be an issue that would cause him trouble with any of  his constituents.  Mr. Bunce replied with some very enlightening words, “It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle.  In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question.  The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man...So you see that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000...You will easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.  No, colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.  Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose...The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”  (Ellis 2)

Mr. Horatio Bunce understood the Constitution and its limitations and was willing to defend it with his vote.  

The writers of the Constitution established the goal from the first day of the convention to give the United States a government strong enough to govern, but sufficiently limited in its powers so as not to repeat the mistakes of the government they had just overthrown.  The very wise writers of the Constitution knew that they could not give any power to their government that they themselves did not have the lawful right to do.  

"In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief  by the chains of the Constitution.”  (Jefferson 4)

Think of this in a more personal way and you will more clearly understand the premise.  Certainly we as individuals have the right to protect our own life and property.  Suppose that someone in your community sees that through your hard work and perseverance you have come to own an iPhone and several computers, including a laptop or two.  Then this person notices that another member of the community does not own a cell phone or a computer at all.  Out of concern for the less fortunate person he comes to your house and takes one of your computers and gives it to the less fortunate person, stating that you have others and even an iPhone, so you hardly need this computer that he has taken from you.  Well of course you would press charges against this modern day Robin Hood and the law would be on your side.  

Now imagine that this concerned person goes to the local government and convinces them to make a law so that it is legal to take your possessions and give them to another simply because you have it and they do not.  That would be absurd!  Now you are left without any rights to protect your own property!  That is exactly what our government is doing in the name of the ‘general welfare’.  We have been stripped of our rights to the enjoyment of our life, liberty and property and most of us don’t even realize it.  

Proponents of the welfare state, or socialism, argue that a fantasy world can be achieved by implementing this Robin Hood mentality.  In fact, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.  Sweden and Greece are two recent examples out of many that could be examined from the history of the world.  Some reasons for these failures are reasons that the writers of our Constitution understood and were so aware of that they went to great lengths to try and prevent.  They understood human nature.   

James Madison said it like this, “It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices [as Constitutional chains] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? ... If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. [But lacking these] in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  (3)

The founders of this country and the writers of our Constitution understood that the motivation of the people who are producing the wealth would only be stifled in response to a limiting of their rights to control their future through the pursuit of their own type of happiness.  When a government is in control of the lives and wealth of the citizens, corruption is sure to ensue.  

The abuses that we are allowing our government to get away with began in small ways such as Horatio Bunce pointed out to Davy Crockett, but once they began to take place, snowballed into the enormous, inefficient government that we are suffering with today and they continue to find new ways to inject themselves into the affairs of the individual citizens of this country.  As history shows us, and as we see happening today, this government will continue to turn to excessive borrowing and inflation in order to finance their socialistic obligations.  Eventually, this will lead to social and economic chaos and inevitably violence or revolution, which takes us back to the conditions which existed and caused our founders to act in the first place.

This nation was founded upon self governance and personal responsibility.  The abuse of the general welfare clause has led to a generation of people who are conditioned to rely on the government for their every need from the cradle to the grave and who are largely unaware, (much thanks to the government controlled school system) of  how their rights are being eroded.   Largely in the name of general welfare, we are paying as much as 60% of our incomes to the government in some form of taxes.  I say give me my money back so that I can again exercise my personal responsibility!

We as a nation must take hold of this great Republic of ours and bring it back to a respect and obedience to the Constitution.  A Constitution that was written with wisdom bestowed upon men by God, containing elements designed to withstand time.  We need to be mindful of those we allow into the power positions to ensure that they have a solid understanding, at least as solid as a backwoods farmer named Horatio Bunce, of the United States Constitution and the proper, well documented interpretation thereof.  

“Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which has not changed and will not change—namely, human nature.” (5)

Works Cited

1. Browne, Harry. "What Happened to the Land of the Free?" Harry Browne: Libertarian Politics, Articles, Books, Speeches, and Investments. Web. 06 May 2011. <http://harrybrowne.org/articles/LandOfFree.htm>.
2. Ellis, Edward S. “The Life Of Colonel David Crockett” University Press of the Pacific Honolulu, HI, University of the Pacific, 2004. Print.
3. Hamilton, Alexander, et al. “The Federalist Papers”: No. 41, No. 51, Signet Classic, 2003. Print.
4. Jefferson, Thomas. “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and ‘99”, General Books LLC, 2009. Print.
5. Skousen, Cleon W. “The 5000 Year Leap The 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World”: 7th Principle, National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2007. Print.