The “Anti-Federalists” had good arguments. The “Federalists” were statists then as they are now. When you have a prostituted “general welfare” clause among other atrocities committed on the Constitution, what can we expect but the incrementalism that has got us here today? “Here” being on the verge of totalitarianism.
He says:
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.
Translation: He thinks it's a stupid argument. He seems to labor under the assumption that the politicians under his system would be honest. I don't know where he got that idea.
"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
Translation: But I made a list! Anyone seeing the list will naturally discern that the general statement is actually worthless, and just a superfluous summation of the listed powers! That's obvious, and to conclude otherwise is absurd!
Wrong James. Totally, completely wrong.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. "
But James, in the Articles, it doesn't give Congress power to "promote" the general welfare. It merely says that the league was entered into for their general welfare.
The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc.
AND ARE ALLOWED, James. It says AND ARE ALLOWED.
Madison just couldn't see the glaring problems in the Constitution. No one thinks their own child is ugly, I guess.
Agreed. Everyone was caught off guard by the immediate power grab for the judiciary by Marshal as well.