Replies

Here is the pertinent passage from Federalist 41, James Madison, on the "general Welfare" clause:

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.
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." 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. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

justshutupandtakeit, I'd like to hear your rebuttal to Mr. Madison. I am extremely curious about it, in fact.

You think this is not saying that funds can be raised to provide for the "general Welfare"?

It's saying taxes can be imposed to provide for the general welfare. That provision can only be understood in light of what follows in the section, i.e. the enumeration of powers. Look at it this way: there are two ways of looking at it. #1 holds that it does not grant the power to do anything that might be for the general welfare, and #2 hold that it does. #2 renders the rest of the section pointless, since everything listed is there to promote the general welfare, and makes the Tenth Amendment incoherent, since "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states" would be a null set. Not to mention, it makes the author of the phrase a liar, because he directly and very clearly denied #2.

It would seem #1 ought to be considered as having some small advantage. The general welfare can only be understood in relation to the context of what follows. As Madison says, "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." Any other view cannot be supported in light of the rest of the document, the words of the authors in other places, or the historical context.