Replies

I have no intention of trying to rebut Madison merely to say that his later argument is not entirely convincing. Much of the selection posted appears to be backfilling and an attempt to escape an ambiguity which enemies of the Constitution seized upon. This was brought about by very unclear and convoluted sentence construction. Perhaps the committee on style did not notice it perhaps there was a typographic error.

The very fact that this discussion has to occur is substantiation of my argument that this document is not simple and that major differences of opinion can occur over the meaning of punctuation marks and sentence structure. To claim that this is simple is like claiming Faulkner is simple. This is a sentence of hundreds of words and was not written by Madison but by the Committee on Style. I don't have Hamilton's analysis of it handy but believe it to be a little different. He was also on the Committee and probably had more discussions with Madison about the document than anyone else. At that time they were very close allies even friends. So I will assume that Madison's description of the intent of the phrase is correct. However...

1)from my understanding of grammar the phrases enumerating what funds could be spent for are all independent clauses not examples of what is the "general welfare." My belief is that when a list is to be imparted it follows a : not a ; perhaps an English major could clarify this. Maybe usage was different in 1787.

But all those phrases ending with ; seem to be seperate allowable uses.

2)Madison's complaint that it could be construed to allow funds to be used for destruction of the freedom of the press apparently remained a concern with many so the Bill of Rights was adopted to clarify this point. M. and H. did not believe a BofR was necessary.

3)The section "If the different parts...." is not entirely clear to me but I do not agree that it is logical to construe the specified uses as something to "be denied any signification whatsoever." The clauses appear to be independent of each other.

4)Since Madison refers to the identity of language in the Articles etc. it appears that this is a conventional phrase probably not given much thought before its useage. A rhetorical device can come back to haunt you in a document like this when every word is scrutinized.

5)Why is the term even there if it is to be ignored? It certainly has created confusion, controversey and mischief.

6) AJA I have stated elsewhere that I believe that the 10th amendment is essentially meaningless but for noting that State internal police powers are affirmed, judicial, health, etc. it has no meaning that I have been able to discover as regards the relation between the state and the federal governments or that between the state governments with each other. The 10th is significant in its apparent lack of impact on constitutional law. I have challenged those who believe it to be anything other than a rhetorical device to refer me to some case law where it is referenced.

First, let me just say thanks for getting back to this. Now then:

I agree with you on that. This is a problem I have with nullification. It seems to me there ought to be a final judge of constitutionality, and then, if the states require remedy, or clarification, there is amendment. Maybe that's not perfect, but how many interpretations can we have at one time and still have a workable system?

But all those phrases ending with ; seem to be seperate allowable uses.

My understanding is that semicolons separate independent clauses.

5)Why is the term even there if it is to be ignored? It certainly has created confusion, controversey and mischief.

I think general Welfare was meant to mean "for the good of all the states in general." That's what I take it to mean. As opposed to "for the benefit of certain states."

The 10th is significant in its apparent lack of impact on constitutional law. I have challenged those who believe it to be anything other than a rhetorical device to refer me to some case law where it is referenced.

My mother the lawyer says that's actually how they teach the 10th amendment in law school.

All well said and all, but the fact remains that the Constitution and its meaning were debated in public arguing for and against certain words and phrasings through the Anti-Federalist papers and the Federalist papers. The arugments for ratification and its subsuquent ratification were based on the arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers. Based on that fact alone, the people, and their representatives, understood that the "general welfare" clause was not a specificed power. Madison told them it wasn't and it was ratified based on his word.

That alone is enough to hold the government to that meaning, regardless of what future actions indicated or arguments were put forth.

I, personally, think that the Anti-Federalists were correct in most of their arguments and that the Constitution gives the government too much power. But I was not present then and the only thing we have is the writings of the folks how were there. We have to use those writings to put meaning to any kind of ambiguousness and hold them to what they promised the Anti-Federalists and the people.

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449