Replies

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”

But this just can't be.

If this really meant what you take it to mean--that the "general welfare" clause of Art. I, Sec. 8 gives the federal government power to regulate anything it deems to be contrary to the general welfare, then it has unlimited power--and that clearly defeats the purpose of the entire document. If Art. I, Sec. 8 gives the government that broad of powers, why bother enumerating Congressional powers in the same section, even! Isn't that redundant at best, and contradictory at worst?

In sum, I really don't think you can honestly read the general welfare clause that broadly; it creates a de facto national government. That seems to defeat the purpose of the rest of the document: creating a federal government of limited, enumerated powers.

You are correct in that the “general welfare phrase” was originally intended to be limited. I suggest you read Federalist Paper 41 by Madison. He lays out the limitations that the founders envisioned as appropriate for this phrase. It was intended to dovetail with a federal system of limited powers. Unfortunately, the “water has been considerably muddied” by the 14th amendment which, to a great extent, turned the federal system into a national one and abrogated a number of the limitations on the formerly, limited powers.

However, the reason I mentioned it was to emphasize that even the limited powers do not preclude the government from taking those steps essential to prevent national collapse. Such a situation would, not only, come under the general welfare phrase, but the defense phrase as well. Additionally, the “commerce clause” of the Constitution covers all interstate commerce. Therefore, if any drugs (the original topic under which this area was mentioned) cross a state line or money from the sale of such or information about acquiring such, Congress is entitled to intervene without stretching the original “commerce clause” even a little bit.

I don't know if I would say that it wouldn't stretch the commerce clause "even a little bit."

If you read the language of the commerce clause, it reads "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states...." This could easily be read to mean only transactions between states could be regulated. This interpretation would mesh with some of the problems that the states had under the Articles of Confederation.

But, even leaving that aside, your interpretation gets us where we are now--a system in which, as you admit, is a National Government that has de facto unlimited powers to regulate as it so chooses. There is no question that was not the intent of the Founders, and it strikes this writer as strange that we would interpret a clause of the constitution to reach a result that we KNOW is directly contrary to that envisioned by the Founders, especially when a perfectly legitimate reading of the document is available and comes much, much closer to meshing with the intention of the Founders and the document.

Unlike others on this thread, I don't feel that the meaning of every clause in the constitution is plainly obvious, but to read a clause to mean something so directly contrary to what it was intended to mean just is unfathomable to me.

Therefore, if any drugs (the original topic under which this area was mentioned) cross a state line or money from the sale of such or information about acquiring such, Congress is entitled to intervene without stretching the original “commerce clause” even a little bit.

Can you give an example of any type of commodity, or money or information associated with that commodity or item that never crosses state lines, even at the time of the ratification?