Brandon9000 wrote:The government may finance anything it deems a worthy cause. It's an implied power, as first defined by Hamilton and Washington, as a justification for creating a national bank. The same argument used here could be interpreted as making NASA unconstitutional, which is, of course, absurd.
I think that the use of aborted human embryos for stem cell research is immoral, and the use human embryos from other sources probably is too, but certainly not for this reason.
Sorry, but your opinion is not supported by the mountain of evidence to the contrary!
To put this matter into perspective, it is essential to first understand a fundamental principle of constitutional law: "Perhaps the most basic of all the rules of constitutional construction (since it is the rule which all other rules may be said to be designed to implement) is the principle that a constitution is to be given the effect and meaning contemplated by its framers and by the people who adopted it..." [ see Vol 16 American Jurisprudence (constitutional law) Sec. 91].
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, also known as the "general welfare" clause, states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
So, in conformity with the most basic rule of constitutional construction, what did the framers and ratifiers intend by the words “general welfare”?
Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...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...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."
Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution:
"the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out
"was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]
Even Hamilton, your bud, who changed his tune after the constitution was ratified, says in Federalist 83, in reference to the general welfare clause, that
"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."
Hamilton’s words in Federalist No. 83 are also in harmony with that of Jefferson:
"Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark that divides the Federalists from the Republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provided for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently that the specification of power is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." (letter from Jefferson to Gallatin, June 16th, 1817)
Likewise, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention
"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]
For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified, to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording “promote the general welfare“.
As Justice Story correctly declares [see1084 of his com.]
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
The idea that Congress may Constitutional tax and spend for whatever purpose it chooses simply does not correspond to the mountain of evidence concerning the legislative intent of Article 1, Section, 8, cl. 1. I have searched the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers, Madison’s’ Notes, Elliots Debates, and a number of other historical sources, and the preponderance of evidence shows the general welfare phrase is not, and was not, intended to be an open ended grant of power which allows Congress to summarily decide what is necessary for the general welfare, and then tax and spend for such purposes, the simple truth is, Congress is limited by the seventeen specifications beneath the phrase just as our Founding Fathers intended it to be, and the 10th Amendment’s intent confirms this!
If you have something to offer, rather than you opinion, such as evidence from the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, please fell free to post that evidence.
JWK
ACRS
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."[/i]Federalist Paper No. 45