Article I Section 8: Means to Ends

Our 18th century Framers were precise grammarians. They spent months debating in a stuffy Philadelphia state house to thrash out every concept, idea, detail, clause and yes, punctuation, that ended up in our beloved Constitution. From James Madison’s notes, there is no question that every element had to first pass a committee composed of a few members, and then survive withering examination by a committee of all state delegates.

It is here that the limited legislative powers declared in Section 1 are elaborated. The end, or purpose of the law is to provide for the “common Defense and general welfare of the United States.” What follows are the means.

Notice the many semicolons and only one period, at the very end of the entire section. That is right. Section 8 is a single, long, declarative sentence. There is no disconnect between the declaratory clause (common defense and general welfare) and the enumerated powers which follow. The enumerated powers (means) are components of a single thought, to provide for our common defense and general welfare (ends).

The Framers began with a broad statement, provide for the common Defense and general Welfare, and then got into specifics in the same sentence. It is no error or oversight that Article I, Section 8 was written as it was. It was purposely done in order to make sure that a reasonably literate people could not ignore, confuse or abuse its meaning. Congressional powers are strictly limited to those enumerated in order to implement the purposes of this new government.

When viewed this way, the words of James Madison in Federalist #41 are perfectly clear: “Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital 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.”

Even absent Madison’s comments, the grammar and punctuation combined with long length remove all doubt as to the relationship between the common Defense and general Welfare clause to the enumerated powers that follow.

Through misrepresentation of Section 8, “General Welfare” has long been horribly abused to justify almost any government action. It is not, by itself, a broad grant of power. This is reflected in early congressional debate over appropriations. The first congress refused to make a loan to a glass manufacturer after several members viewed such an act as unconstitutional. The fourth congress did not believe it had the power to provide relief to Savannah, Georgia after a devastating fire destroyed the city.1

First principles are of the utmost importance to a nation of laws. If the ends of appropriations were to be expanded beyond those enumerated in 1787, each and every addition should have been ratified by We The People. “General Welfare” abuse is merely part of the panoply of illegally expanded powers going far beyond all rational reading of the Constitution.

It is up to us, the sovereign people, to determine the means and ends of the government of our creation.

1. Meese, Edwin. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2005. Page 93.

"Through misrepresentation of Section 8, “General Welfare” has long been horribly abused to justify almost any government action. It is not, by itself, a broad grant of power. ..."

Note that in his constitutionally required veto explanation for Congress’s public works bill of 1817, President James Madison had explained that the General Welfare Clause (GWC), which Congress was using to justify building roads and canals, is not a delegation of specific powers, but an introductory clause for the clauses that follow it in Section 8, most of those clauses delegations of specific powers.

”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.” —President James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, 1817.

But regardless of Madison’s official explanation of the GWC, post-FDR era, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices have allowed corrupt Congress to use the GWC to justify establishing things like Social Security and Obamacare.

Perhaps of more current importance at the moment is Article 1 Section 8 under enumerated mandates, “To establish and Uniform Rule of Naturalizaton...”. This is the foundation for the 14th Amendment, the Amendment being misconstrued by Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley, and all their supporters. This is the mandate that was not realized until after our second civil war (the Revolution was our first, since both combatants were British subjects) because there was not a uniform definition for who could be citizens. The only Constitutionally defined citizens before 1869 were natural born citizens. The only citizens defined by natural law were born to parents who were citizens by the naturalization laws of their sovereign states, and who were born on territories over which the U.S. had total jurisdiction. After the 14th Amendment, naturalization became “uniform”. But being naturalized “at-birth” is entirely distinct from being naturally born a citizen. Minor v. Happersett nailed the common-law, common-law concisely defined in our nation’s first law book, Vattel’s Natural Law and the Law of Nations, founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, who made Vattel our first law book.

Someone (rxsid?) may know if one of Jefferson’s six volumes of Vattel’s Law of Nations was one of those early translations purchased by Benjamin Franklin in 1863?

We are seeing “authorities” boldly creating their own interpretations. Understanding requires careful reading. It is sad to see so many to whom this writer has turned for understanding, like Thomas Sowell, Andy McCarthy, Victor Davis Hansen, and while Niall Ferguson is known more for his popular books on economics, his stunning second wife, Ayaan Hirsi Ali learned Dutch, earned a law degree and became an MP in the Netherlands, and should have helped her new husband to read the law of this her third nation. She is here because the U.S. was built upon protecting individual sovereignty, and the Dutch backed away from supplying their Muslim Apostate with police protection from the rapidly growing Islamic population in Netherlands.

Our framers, based upon several thousand years of precedent, required that only our president have no attachments that could encumber his/her judgement where the principle job of our president is protecting the nation. Being born a Cuban, or Canadian, or British Subject, or Indian citizen, could come with encumbrances our framers and founders saw no reason to risk.

The 14th Amendment NATURALIZES those born or naturalized (by their states) in the U.S. at birth. It doesn’t ever mention natural born citizenship, and its author, Congressman/Judge/Abolitionist John Bingham insures that there is no doubt in his lectures to the House while campaigning for passage of the bill, which would be supported by over 2/3 of both houses of Congress and by 3/4 of the states. Bingham said:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”

As recently as April 2008, in a hearing to “resolve” since a previous bill, Senate Bill 2678, February 2008, “A BILL To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.”, co-sponsored by Senators Obama and McCaskill, FAILED TO PASS. McCaskill, Clinton, Obama, Menendez, and others sponsored Senate Resolution 511, which hearings included DHS Chair and Judge Michael Chertoff, who said: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”

In the Senate Hearings for Senate Res. 511 Larry Tribe and Ted Olson contributed a lengthy letter, cited by many, including useful pundit Mark Levin, which those who appreciate clever legal misdirection might enjoy. Larry, like his student Obama, but unlike his Student Cruz, is honest about his belief in a “living Constitution”. Larry, who studied mathematics as an undergraduate demonstrates how a little misdirection can allow a seemingly coherent argument can mislead. Larry confirms the need for citizen parents at birth, but cites Congress’ confusing 1790 naturalization Act, which mentions the phrase “natural born citizen” as confirmation that McCain was confirmed natural born by U.S. Code.

The writer agrees with the principle Tribe, Olson, et.al. are proposing. So did Vattel. But it is not current law, and, probably for reasons of political expediency, no case has reached the Supreme Court, nor amendment passed through Congress to confirm Vattel’s paragraph 217 recommendation, making children born to citizen parents in service of the state “reputed” native-born.

Obama and McCaskill’s Senate Bill 2678 was not unreasonable. But Democrat Senators may not have been willing to risk losing to McCain. As Biden noted, Obama was too big an opportunity, one which they could benefit by without making more children born to military citizens potential adversaries.

First, U.S. code could not have interpreted or extended a Constitutional Provision, but more importantly, the 1790 Naturalization Act, confirmed in its text as drawing its authority from Article 1 Section 8, Creating an Uniform Rule for Naturalization, could only have naturalized a child. More importantly, the 1790 Act was completely rescinded by the 1795 Naturalization Act and 1802 Naturalization Act in which the phrase “natural born citizen” is everywhere replaced by “citizen”.

This bill was to smooth the path, provide talking points for the government media, should someone recall the many failures in court and Congress to get McCain’s eligibility confirmed. Clearly, Obama and his campaign co-chair, and committee legal advisor Larry Tribe, intended that McCain be Obama’s opposition because McCain’s supporters, the GOPe, could not object to Obama’s honest admission that he was a naturalized citizen. If only Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley, or the pundits mentioned above showed the respect for our framers to honestly represent the Constitution and dozens of Supreme Court decision.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.