GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE IN THE US CONSTITUTION

I really get tired of people pulling the 'general welfare' clause of the constitution.  Its meaning is pretty clear, and it was bad case law that allowed it be used as it is today to do things blatantly unconstitutional.  So, let's explore it for a bit.  It may not change that we have to abide by this case law, but it does explain it.


The term 'general welfare' appears twice in the United States Constitution. Once in the preamble, and once in section 8 which lists the powers of congress.

First the preamble:

“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.”

SCOTUS has held that - the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments"

That's pretty cut and dried. Now for section 8:

There it is in the first power:

“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; “

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

The key point in the Jefferson explanation is - "...provide for the welfare of the Union...." So he pretty much spells it out that it was intended to be used for the welfare of the nation as a whole NOT individuals.

To me that is one of the key points: when the Founders meant individuals they used the term 'the people' when they meant as a nation they used the United States. This would seem in and of itself to to mean that taxation was to be collected for use in the other enumerated powers NOT for individual gains. There shouldn't be any other issue, but the sad fact is that there has been some seriously bad case law that has changed that. However the base dispute goes all the way back to James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

I find it interesting that Hamilton espoused his view only after ratification. To me that is enough to dismiss Hamilton, but in several cases. Notably 'US vs Butler' and 'Steward Machine Company v. Davis' the SCOTUS ruled fairly Hamiltonionish (to coin a phrase), but then later in life one of the Justices (citation needed) admitted that he (and hinted that others might have) voted as they did to head off FDR's attempt to pack the court. So they basically destroyed the constitution in order to save the court. Kind of scary, but I think many of the US's problems stem from those bad cases.