Can I get some DU opinions on the words of James Madison regarding "General Welfare"?

[RoseMead]

I've been involved in a long conversation on Facebook with a friend who appears to be essentially a small-or-no-government libertarian. I had quoted Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, making the argument that the current health care situation is serious enough to represent a threat to the "general welfare" of the country, and that thus Congress was operating within the scope of its powers in passing the new law.

He replied today by quoting James Madison in the Federalist Papers #41 and #45. Madison asserts that the Constitution specifies a narrow range of Congressional powers, and not "an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare."

My friend finished by adding: "These quotes from Madison and Jefferson are completely consistent with the meaning of the term "Welfare" at the time. "Welfare" was defined as "Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity", (Webster's Dictionary, 1828)

This stands in stark contrast to the modern definition of the word "Welfare", redefined by the unrestrained spending of the Federal government as: "financial aid provided to individuals in need" (Wikipedia)"



I'm inclined to tell him that the current health care situation is dire enough to qualify as an "unusual evil or calamity" by modern standards, but that doesn't address his main argument. So I thought I'd run this by the smart folks on DU and see what their thoughts were on the matter.

What say you, DUers?

[wyldwolf]

1. had the same discussion yesterday

James Madison believed that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

Alexander Hamilton believed that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

Both Hamilton and John Adams believed the Constitution was a "loose" document that did not define all of the powers that the federal government should have. The government had the right to adopt additional powers to fulfill its duties under the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

[RoseMead]

8. I agree with Hamilton

and I also agree with the idea of the "loose" document. Thank you for the link! :hi:

[Cant trust em]

2. Any argument that winds up being rooted in semantics is never going to be resolved.

If Madison didn't want it left to interpretation, the general welfare clause should have been eliminated.

[RoseMead]

10. Madison's argument seems to be

that he included specifics, so there should not be a question of interpretation.

[Cant trust em]

12. Then why add this broad "general welfare" bit?

This whole thing says, in essence, here are the 20 things that we need the federal government to take care of. But then in some circumstances of dire need, they can do other things too.

If you really wanted to keep it only to those original 20, then why add any kind of addendum at all?

[RoseMead]

26. I guess I'd have to ask:

Did Madison himself write those words? If so, surely he knew what he meant by them. I know he's called the "Father of the Constitution," but I don't know if he literally wrote that passage, or not.

All of this shows how little I know about the history of the Constitution, much to my embarrassment. :blush:

[Cant trust em]

27. Whoever wrote it is immaterial.

What I'd say to your friend is that what's there is there. The whole topic is able to be parsed, so it's really just about who has the most compelling argument. In the case of HCR, democrats won and republicans lost.

[JackRiddler]

3. If he's a no-government libertarian then he has to start with the largest part of the government...

which is the corporations.

Capital is the state. The "government" is about one-third of that.

[RoseMead]

23. We haven't gotten that far in this discussion

I doubt we will.

[kentuck]

4. It seems that "general welfare" would be open to interpretation?

I would think that "general" would include all our citizenry? Otherwise, the Preamble would have said "promote the private welfare" or something similar to that? The Congress is the only avenue that the citizens have to interpret "general welfare". That is part of our social compact.

[RoseMead]

11. That's what I said

I take "general welfare" to refer to the overall well-being of the nation, which would depend, at least in part, on the well-being of it's citizens.

[kentuck]

14. Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you...

Just stating my opinion.

[RoseMead]

16. I know, I was agreeing with you. :) n/t

[butterfly77]

18. But, RepubliCONS,..

Don't care about this citzenry's welfare.

They care about the citizens of other countries' welfare. They are building housing in other countries for their citizens,while our citzenry is homeless.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Tell him "Madison fucking lost, dude."

The General Wellfare clause is the basis for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. People trying to attack HCR are trying to do an end rund around internstae commerce.

[RoseMead]

13. LOL

The guy I'm debating considers Social Security and Medicare to be "socialist fiascos." His comment about that was what started the conversation.

[treestar]

6. One thing is the founders left it general enough and were even

cognizant of the fact that there would be change. I believe Jefferson in a letter specifically referred to the future generations. That they should not be trapped, was the idea. And the mechanism is so slow and difficult, I wonder if that founders meant that.

The powers are limited to a point where you could argue that this plan and others previously adopted don't fall into it - in the founders' day it would have looked like the states could handle most things. I don't think they had a concept for people in California being able to talk to people in Washington DC on the same day!

[RoseMead]

15. And that's also what I said!

The Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned our modern medical industry, or the threat that for-profit insurance, as it now operates, poses to the well-being of the majority of citizens.

[kctim]

7. As soon as you

get welfare straightened out, he will probably mention it also says "promote" not "provide."
And then how the current health care situation does not trump individual rights and freedoms, so it is not as serious of a threat.

In the end you will be in a stand-off because you have different views on individual rights and the role of govt.
It is interesting and fun though.

[RoseMead]

17. "In the end you will be in a stand-off

because you have different views on individual rights and the role of govt."

Yep! In fact, we had just agreed to disagree, but then he decided to bring up the Madison quotes.

[EndElectoral]

9. The problematic issue is the mandate to purchase private insurance rather than via collection of tax

In Social Security and Medicare, the population is taxed under the General Welfare clause to pay for those programs. The argument here is that people are NOT taxed under the General Welfare clause but are mandated to pay for private insurance. This is why Single Payer or Medicare for All would have not had a constitutional issue since everyone would have been taxed to pay for the program. Here revenue for services is not taxed, but mandated that citizens purchase a private product. Some believe the Commerce clause allows this, but with the conservatives on the Supreme Court I would not be surprised if this one is not ruled unconstitutional.

[RoseMead]

21. I understand what you're saying

We haven't even made it to the question of tax vs. purchase yet. The guy I'm debating thinks that SS and Medicare are "socialist fiascos," so it's been slow going.

For the record, I wanted single payer. I still do.

[sfwriter]

19. Where does he think the modern term Welfare comes from?

That's right, what he said just needs an addendum that our concept of welfare grows from that clause.

[defendandprotect]

20. National Security isn't only a matter of foreign affairs and NEW DEAL set the

correct standard/precedent for aiding fellow citizens --

as a basis for aiding the nation -- creating stability --

Social Security/Medicare also do that --

Further, United Nations Proclamation on HUMAN RIGHTS ...

specifies . . . FOOD/SHELTER/CLOTHING/HEALTH CARE



But, I would add that right wing libertarians are vile -- you're wasting your

time with them. If there is a low road to be taken, they will always take it.

Evidently, there are some liberal libertarians -- quite different creatures.


Libertarians want "no government" but they want roads and services !!

[RoseMead]

22. I agree

We are interacting and competing with other nations that do a much better job of caring for their citizens. I don't see how that's not a national security matter.

[defendandprotect]

25. It's the old patriarchal voodoo .....

National Security as secretive -- violent -- MIC -- Patriarchy = strength

Welfare of citizens -- non-violence -- anti-war -- human rights = weak

[kestrel91316]

24. "The general welfare" is whatever the People decide it is. And this week WE

decided it includes access to healthcare.

[frustrated_lefty]

28. Madison was interested in preserving states rights to regulate

the daily affairs of men (free, white men for that matter). You might point out to your friend that the constitutionality of the federal government intervening in the daily affairs of citizens within states, even beyond times of war, emergency, or taxation, was addressed in great detail during and after the Civil War.

The Constitution permits several specific powers, prohibits others, and leaves a lot of grey area in between. Your friend's basic assertion is that HCR/HIR is an unnecessary and excessive intervention of the federal government within the realm of state authority. Is it unnecessary? Given that health care costs something like 16% of our annual GDP, that's kind of a silly claim. Is it excessive? Over 44,000 Americans die every year due to lack of coverage. If we faced similar casualties in war, there would be national outcry and civil unrest. Only because poverty lies at the basis of these deaths is such a loss accepted within this culture.

The foundation and best expression of the promise of this nation is summarized in a few, universally known words, from two sources with similar intent:

"We the People...."

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...."

The first doesn't say "We the noble class...."

The second doesn't say "Give me your right wing fanatics, their sycophants, and those hiding in fear...."

Acting to protect the citizens of this nation, regardless of station in life, is neither unnecessary nor excessive within the bounds of the Constitution.

my tupence, anyway.

[RoseMead]

31. You make a good point about comparable war casualties. n/t

[TexasObserver]

29. What I say is: "What Madison wrote in the Federalist papers is not controlling law."

These wannabe constitutional authorities don't seem to understand that the constitution is not the thing it was before it was approved by the US citizenry in the late 1700s, when Madison wrote those comments. The constitution is the accumulation of all its amendments, and all the Supreme Court cases interpreting it, right up to today. The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

The Federalist papers make great reading, and are important from a historical perspective, but one should always remember why they were written. They were written to convince citizens to approve the change from the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution. Because Madison and his fellow founding fathers had wholly failed to provided protections for citizens in their new constitution, a movement had to be created to stop the constitution as it was written. That group insisted upon the addition of ten amendments, which we know as the Bill of Rights. Those rights, which are what we really worship about the constitution, were the idea of the founding fathers, but of the founding progressives who made the founding fathers accept it.

What Madison wrote was relevant to people in that era, but not this one. What James Madison thought the word "welfare" means is completely irrelevant to any discussion of the term today. The question isn't "what does Madison say?" The question is "what does the Supreme Court say?"

Tell your facebook friend that his or her reading of Madison is not relevant to the topic, but that Supreme Court decisions the past 50 years are. Tell them the constitution is a living, breathing document, which evolves every year.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

30. Judicial review. Marbury v.Madison, 1803.

Case law controls statute law, and in some cases overturns it.

Simple.

[TexasObserver]

32. Exactly. Those who herald the original document really want 1790 back.

Is that a UU symbol in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?