Replies

James Madison says House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a f*****g idiot*.

ML/NJ

* Federalist #41 (excerpt)

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," 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 for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? 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? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of 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, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Madison's logic is, typically, inescapable. The extensive enumerating list that follows the general proposition of Article 1 Section 8 was clearly intended as a means of explaining and qualifying that proposition. It can serve no other purpose in the context provided. Nor is this nearly the only place in the Constitution where Federal powers are so enumerated and delineated.

Steny Hoyer is thus either ignorant of the Constitution's meaning, or a knowing manipulator seeking unwarranted expansion of Federal power consequent to public misunderstanding. I vote for the latter.

“James Madison says House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a f*****g idiot*.

ML/NJ

* Federalist #41 (excerpt)”

Excellent post. I was trying to find this part of the Federalist Papers when I saw you beat me to it. Madison makes very clear that the General Welfare language (it’s not really a “clause”) is in no way intended to expand the limited enumerated powers of the Constitution.

If it were - there would be no need to continue writing the constitution. I could just say, General Welfare - whatever it takes.

Madison even said -

""If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.

Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

That last part is the kicker. Too bad our present set of "leaders" aren't up to date on what our founding documents really mean. Or, you can be cynical, and say that they know the real meaning but don't give a rat's rump.