1
   

James Madison/Thomas Jefferson and "General Welfare"

 
 
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 06:46 pm
Quote:
Veto of federal public works bill

March 3, 1817

To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States


Quote:
"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


Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794


Quote:
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172


Quote:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson


lol@the "general welfare" losers out there.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,131 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 05:27 pm
@One Man Clan,
C'mon, where are all the "general welfare" losers on this one?

Don'cha guys care about what the Founding Fathers had to say?
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 12:12 pm
@One Man Clan,
This argument is a tough one for me. I hear this all the time "this is what the founding fathers intended (or did not intend, depending on the issue)". The "'founding fathers" reference is commonly used as evidence either for or against an issue of national interest. IMO, they were no smarter or resourceful than any of the current leaders, they were just more committed to do whatever was necessary to ensure the proliferation of our new nation. I question the value of some of their decisions made at that time to what is relevant today. As I am writing this, I realize that for the ardent participants in this forum, you will ask for evidence. Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with some examples.
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jun, 2007 03:26 pm
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;21523 wrote:
This argument is a tough one for me. I hear this all the time "this is what the founding fathers intended (or did not intend, depending on the issue)". The "'founding fathers" reference is commonly used as evidence either for or against an issue of national interest. IMO, they were no smarter or resourceful than any of the current leaders, they were just more committed to do whatever was necessary to ensure the proliferation of our new nation. I question the value of some of their decisions made at that time to what is relevant today. As I am writing this, I realize that for the ardent participants in this forum, you will ask for evidence. Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with some examples.


That's not the issue. The issue is that all the losers who cite "general welfare" as a delegation of power ignore the Constitution, and allow the government to do things not authorized by the Constitution.

They've been ignoring the Constitution for years.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 10:31 pm
@One Man Clan,
One Man Clan;21404 wrote:
C'mon, where are all the "general welfare" losers on this one?

Don'cha guys care about what the Founding Fathers had to say?
LOL, na we don't care what you have to say, LOL.
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 07:42 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;21983 wrote:
LOL, na we don't care what you have to say, LOL.


Maybe, but don't you care what the Constitution and Founding Fathers had to say?
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 08:25 am
@One Man Clan,
One Man Clan;22026 wrote:
Maybe, but don't you care what the Constitution and Founding Fathers had to say?
When i do i read the Constitution or original materials.
It would seem to me if this problem bothers you so much you need to get SCOTUS to hear your case. IMO if you can get then to hear you they would side with you. You got alot of work ahead of you, i'd get started.
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 10:44 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;22034 wrote:
When i do i read the Constitution or original materials.
It would seem to me if this problem bothers you so much you need to get SCOTUS to hear your case. IMO if you can get then to hear you they would side with you. You got alot of work ahead of you, i'd get started.


No they wouldn't.

You act like politicians are honorable and/or honest.

I hear this bullshit argument used so many times when it comes to this issue. That's simply appeal to authority and appeal to status quo.
0 Replies
 
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 06:02 pm
@One Man Clan,
I'm dissapointed in this country. Namely, the inhabitants of this forum (don't it burn? don't it burn bad?).

I've demonstrated that the government has been breaking the laws meant to hold it back for a loooong time now, and all I get are immature half-responses.

I know some of you are Republocrat Commies, come out and try at this debate.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 06:11 pm
@One Man Clan,
One Man Clan;22406 wrote:
I'm dissapointed in this country. Namely, the inhabitants of this forum (don't it burn? don't it burn bad?).

I've demonstrated that the government has been breaking the laws meant to hold it back for a loooong time now, and all I get are immature half-responses.

I know some of you are Republocrat Commies, come out and try at this debate.


Simply put, the MSM wouldn't allow the Founding Father any airtime, or even a chance at being elected today. Oh, and don't expect much in the way of any of the neocons offering up actual reasons or intelligable debate on the matter, you can however expect a lot of argumentum ad hominem. There's couple people that would post a debate, unfortunately, most of them agree, and have nothing to debate.
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 06:14 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;22409 wrote:
Simply put, the MSM wouldn't allow the Founding Father any airtime, or even a chance at being elected today. Oh, and don't expect much in the way of any of the neocons offering up actual reasons or intelligable debate on the matter, you can however expect a lot of argumentum ad hominem. There's couple people that would post a debate, unfortunately, most of them agree, and have nothing to debate.


I'm not expecting the "neocon" half to debate me here, I'm expecting the "liberal" (I use that term really, really loosely when it comes to American socialists) half to debate me.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 06:34 pm
@One Man Clan,
One Man Clan;22412 wrote:
I'm not expecting the "neocon" half to debate me here, I'm expecting the "liberal" (I use that term really, really loosely when it comes to American socialists) half to debate me.


Ahhh, well, that depends on what "liberal" you want to debate with. Real liberals, or the left leaning wingnuts, though I see you want the latter by your paranthesised statement.
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 06:37 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;22418 wrote:
Ahhh, well, that depends on what "liberal" you want to debate with. Real liberals, or the left leaning wingnuts, though I see you want the latter by your paranthesised statement.


Real liberals are called "libertarians".

"Liberals" are people who think big government is a good thing.

Basically, it's anyone who wants to deny the basic freedoms of the business owner, and many other individuals (like when it comes to guns, freedom of speech, and yes I mean racism, thought crimes like "hate crimes", etc etc etc etc etc etc).
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 06:45 pm
@One Man Clan,
One Man Clan;22419 wrote:
Real liberals are called "libertarians".

"Liberals" are people who think big government is a good thing.

Basically, it's anyone who wants to deny the basic freedoms of the business owner, and many other individuals (like when it comes to guns, freedom of speech, and yes I mean racism, thought crimes like "hate crimes", etc etc etc etc etc etc).


Libertarian is derived from the french it basically means anarchy, liberal is derived from latin for liberty. While one could draw some similarities, and libertarianism draws heavily from liberlism, it really isn't fair to maintain that the two are synonumous.

I guess I am safe, as I believe in guns, freedom of speech, etc, etc, etc, etc, I just don't think that our goverment has our best interest at heart. I personally believe it has well overstepped its boundries and used the general welfare as an excuse.
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 07:03 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;22422 wrote:
Libertarian is derived from the french it basically means anarchy, liberal is derived from latin for liberty. While one could draw some similarities, and libertarianism draws heavily from liberlism, it really isn't fair to maintain that the two are synonumous.

I guess I am safe, as I believe in guns, freedom of speech, etc, etc, etc, etc, I just don't think that our goverment has our best interest at heart. I personally believe it has well overstepped its boundries and used the general welfare as an excuse.


Not in American usage.

In American usage the term liberal has come to mean people who believe in government intervention economically, and quite a bit of it.

They basically want a European style government, or close to it. Maybe not as extreme as the French, but still bad.

A libertarian believes that the government's ONLY responsibility is the defense of it's people's freedoms. Not forcing people to take care of other people (ie, public education and socialized healthcare).
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 07:11 pm
@One Man Clan,
One Man Clan;22426 wrote:
Not in American usage.

In American usage the term liberal has come to mean people who believe in government intervention economically, and quite a bit of it.

They basically want a European style government, or close to it. Maybe not as extreme as the French, but still bad.

A libertarian believes that the government's ONLY responsibility is the defense of it's people's freedoms. Not forcing people to take care of other people (ie, public education and socialized healthcare).


Bolded the good part. So, do you think that it's the goverments job to enforce people takng care of people? I don't. It should be a responsibility we feel as a people, and as a nation, but not forced into.
One Man Clan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 07:53 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;22430 wrote:
Bolded the good part. So, do you think that it's the goverments job to enforce people takng care of people?


No. That's why I call myself a libertarian.

Quote:
I don't. It should be a responsibility we feel as a people, and as a nation, but not forced into.


If you feel the responsibility, that's not my problem (as you kindly pointed out).

That's a libertarian point of view.
0 Replies
 
lancesorbenson
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 02:15 pm
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;21523 wrote:
IMO, they were no smarter or resourceful than any of the current leaders


Surely you jest.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 02:16 pm
@One Man Clan,
He does jest and quit calling him shirly, LOL. Sorry couldnot resist.
0 Replies
 
BlackcatProwl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 03:54 am
@One Man Clan,
The problem in accepting the construction Jefferson gives in his Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791, is that it would cause a loss in the individual the right to bear arms. The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union were not revoked, except where specifically over~rided by the Constitution.


'...But every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.'


'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'



At the least, one would have to admit to gun control.

However, following the logic of Jefferson, the right to bear arms is dependent on being in the militia.

If one wishes to use the argument to delete other powers, one would have to accept this other loss. As well as the loss of power of the police to arrest people on federal drug charges.

The founders also saw taxes to be placed on wealth, increasing with the amount of wealth. The present exceptions to property tax would be illegal.

The Federal Bank would also be illegal and the control that advantages business men would be lost.

So, one has to decide if one can accept all the variations and cannot be selective.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » James Madison/Thomas Jefferson and "General Welfare"
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/05/2024 at 09:52:23