463

Obiter dictum is not precedent setting. You have no idea what you are talking about. The Court did not rule on the scope of the general welfare clause in Butler and stated this in crystal clear language:

“We are not now required to ascertain the scope of the phrase ‘general welfare of the United States’ or to determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture falls within it.”

And in Helvering the Court refused to review the historical record to determine the scope of the general welfare clause as understood during the framing and ratification debates.

If the Anti-Federalists, during the framing and ratification of our Constitution feared the general welfare clause would lead to an unlimited grant of legislative power, which they did, and the Federalists, Hamilton and Madison, both assured the general welfare clause was intended to be limited to a “specification of particulars” which appears beneath the Clause, how can one honestly arrive at the conclusion the general welfare clause was intended to grant a general legislative authority to Congress and assume control over the people’s healthcare in the various states?

Have you forgotten the Butler decision struck down an attempt by the federal government to enter the States and regulate a subject matter retained by the States under the 10th Amendment?

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

464

I’m neither a lawyer nor a scholar, so I’m learning things as I go along. It seems that this is judicial dictum which has greater weight then obiter dictum. It seems this is rather settled considering a lack of academic and legal texts challenging Helvering for being influenced by Butler.

As someone not prone to believing in conspiracy theories, I tend to accept majority opinion of experts within these fields… for example believing that homosexuality is not a choice, that the earth is round, that vaccines don’t cause autism, that global warming is being accelerated by the actions of humans, and that Nickelback is a terrible band.

The consensus on this issue appears to be that the SSA is constitutional in regards to the general welfare clause and the clause is not limited by the enumerated powers that follow it. While its interesting to go back and forth examining how we got to this point, its pointless to expect me or anyone arguing that we should have universal healthcare to justify its constitutionality based on the constitutional interpretation you believe to be valid instead of on the actual juridical precedent that forms our current legal reality.

Based on current legal precedent and not on your opinion, I believe a universal healthcare law written in such a way that it doesn’t conflict with the 10th Amendment (see, I haven’t forgotten it) would be constitutionally sound. On the other hand, if we lived in an alternative reality where the SSA was struct down as unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the general welfare clause and that said welfare clause was held to be limited by enumerated powers granted to Congress, then no, universal healthcare would not be possible. Fortunately for social democrats like me, the former is reality.

465

When I first saw your post I really thought, for a nanosecond, you were about to actually engage in a sincere dialogue concerning the general welfare clause and its meaning as understood during the framing and ratification of our Constitution. But I immediately realized I was mistaken when observing your latest deflection, obfuscation and misdirection to a fundamental question never addressed in Butler , and refused to be answered by Cardozo in Helvering :

If the Anti-Federalists, during the framing and ratification of our Constitution feared the general welfare clause would lead to an unlimited grant of legislative power, which they did, and the Federalists, Hamilton and Madison, both assured the general welfare clause was intended to be limited to a “specification of particulars” which appears beneath the Clause, how can one honestly arrive at the conclusion the general welfare clause was intended to grant a general legislative authority to Congress?

JWK

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

466

Why do you lash out at me and accuse me of “deflection, obfuscation and misdirection” simply because I choose to justify my opinion on the constitutionality of a potential universal healthcare program on judicial precedent?

467

Lash out? To be frank and answer your question, I merely stated a self-evident observation. Instead of actually engaging in a sincere dialogue concerning the general welfare clause and its meaning as understood during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, and answering a fundamental question I asked, you deflected, obfuscated and misdirected and rambled on about “conspiracy theories”, “homosexuality”, “global warming”, and were proud to announce you are a “social democrat”___ none of which was relevant to my question.

Perhaps in your eagerness to vent your personal feelings as you did, you merely forgot to answer the question I presented. And so, I will present the question once again.

If the Anti-Federalists, during the framing and ratification of our Constitution feared the general welfare clause would lead to an unlimited grant of legislative power, which they did, and the Federalists, Hamilton and Madison, both assured the general welfare clause was intended to be limited to a “specification of particulars” which appears beneath the Clause, how can one honestly arrive at the conclusion the general welfare clause was intended to grant a general legislative authority to Congress?

JWK

“We are not now required to ascertain the scope of the phrase ‘general welfare of the United States’ or to determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture falls within it.” ___ Justice Roberts, United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

468

He doesn’t mention welfare. “General Welfare of the United States” is more specific than “general legislative authority”. Could general welfare not be one of the “certain enumerated cases”?

469

In reading the paper, it seems crystal clear to me Hamilton’s reference to a “specification of particulars” would limit a general grant of power to what is enumerated beneath .

In fact, Hamilton in this paper states a fundamental principle which is then applied. Hamilton states:

The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

Hamilton then goes on to apply the principle with an example:

"In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority."

Likewise, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 is immediately followed by "certain cases particularly specified" , and the "specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority."

But the question remains: If the Anti-Federalists, during the framing and ratification of our Constitution feared the general welfare clause could lead to an unlimited grant of legislative power, which they did, and the Federalists assured the Anti-Federalists the Constitution was not intended as such, nor intended to allow the federal government to intrude upon the internal affairs of the states and exercise power over the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State, how can one honestly arrive at the conclusion the general welfare clause allows the very action feared by Anti-Federalists, which the Federalist assured was not intended?

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

470

But that assumes the “general welfare of the United States” is a general grant of power and not one of the enumerated powers. “General welfare” isn’t carte blanche to spend on whatever, it has to be for the welfare and not local welfare, but the general welfare of the whole country.

Would it be unreasonable to assume that at the time of the ratification there were people in both camps in regards to whether or not the clause was an enumerated power vs a meaningless preface before the enumerated powers?
And here’s another thought… what if some of the federalists were being disingenuous when they “assured the Anti-Federalists the Constitution was not intended as such”? After all, they were trying to convince them to ratify the Constitution? It would seem that at the time of the ratification not all the anti-feds were convinced since they did end up adding the 10th Amendment. Of course since they can only control themselves, its hard for the states to act for the general welfare of the US, so a truly “general welfare” based act is going to be in the power of the national and not state legislature.

471

I appreciate your opinions with respect to the meaning of the general welfare clause, but you offer little, if anything, from the framing and ratification debates to substantiate your opinion and interpretation of the clause.

Let us keep in mind what was said by others, in addition to Hamilton, regarding the meaning of “general welfare” as stated during the framing and ratification debates. Should we not make a sincere attempt to discover the meaning of the general welfare clause as understood during the framing and ratification debates?

Madison states in Federalist Paper No. 45:

“ The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

And, in No. 41 Federalist, Madison, goes on to explain the meaning of “general welfare” to the Anti-Federalists as follows:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the 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 [the anti-federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?..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…But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning…is an absurdity.”

Additionally, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison again explains the limited meaning of the phrase “general welfare” as follows: “… the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” [3 Elliots 95]

Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…”

Similarly, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention cautions the convention:

“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the meaning of the general welfare clause, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress, or the Courts, to extended the federal government’s powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

It must also be noted why 12 Amendments, which includes the Tenth Amendment, were sent to the states for ratification.

In answer to this question we find the answer in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to intentionally keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the State’s internal affairs. And, as previously documented, those affairs include “… the power over the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State,”

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers”?__ Justice Story

472

What I’m getting from all this is that there was enough of a concern that the general welfare clause was too open ended and that the states wanted the Bill of Rights to provide them additional protections. Were it common conception that the use of the term “general welfare” was without meaning and that the Congressional powers were limited by the remaining clauses in that article, then wouldn’t the anti-federalists not be concerned and not feel a need to further limit the powers of Congress?

I’ve been reading Story’s commentaries on the constitution, specifically the parts regarding the general welfare. I’m assuming since he took the Hamiltonian view as being the winner that you don’t agree with him. What do you think about what he wrote?

473

Well, to answer your latest question, I believe the Anti-Federalists were simply following what was later summarized by Thomas Jefferson:

"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. … Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

As I documented in my previous post, the Federalists, during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution, assured the Anti-Federalist the meaning of general welfare, as found in the Constitution, was limited to a list of particulars found beneath Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1.

But in spite of such assurances as to its meaning, and its legislative intent, George Mason, in the Virginia Ratification Convention cautioned:

“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the meaning of the general welfare clause, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress, or the Courts, to extended the federal government’s powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in-between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

474

Anyone besides Madison? So far from what I’ve read in the Federalist Papers I haven’t read anything from Hamilton specifically saying that the general welfare clause is limited by the powers that follow it.

I don’t believe the 10th Amendment clarifies this, it just says that those powers not listed in the Constitution are reserved for the states and people. It doesn’t disqualify the idea that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” is one of the enumerated powers.

So what’s are thoughts on what Story concluded?

475

Do you have any evidence to the contrary from the framing and ratification debates?

Keep in mind, in addition to Madison, Hamilton explains a fundamental principle In Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution during the ratification debates.

Hamilton, and in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority “ Hamilton states:

The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

Hamilton then goes on to apply the principle with an example:

“In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 is immediately followed by “certain cases particularly specified” , and the “specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.”

And, moving forward we find Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443, regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…”

Similarly, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention cautions the convention:

“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the meaning of the general welfare clause, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress, or the Courts, to extended the federal government’s powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

It must also be noted why 12 Amendments, which includes the Tenth Amendment, were sent to the states for ratification.

In answer to this question we find the answer in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to intentionally keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the State’s internal affairs. And, as previously documented, those affairs include “… the power over the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State,”

So, where is your evidence from the framing and ratification debates to establish the general welfare clause allows Congress to tax for, spend on, and regulate the people’s healthcare in the various United States?

If the Anti-Federalists, during the framing and ratification of our Constitution feared the general welfare clause would lead to an unlimited grant of legislative power, which they did, and the Federalists, Hamilton and Madison, both assured the general welfare clause was intended to be limited to a “specification of particulars” which appears beneath the Clause, how can one honestly arrive at the conclusion the general welfare clause was intended to grant a general legislative authority to Congress?

You post plenty of opinions concerning the meaning of the general welfare clause, but neglect to offer any evidence from the framing and ratification debates to support your opinions and conclusions.

JWK

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], 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, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

476

There’s a reason I’ve asked your thoughts on Story’s commentaries as they seem to be just this. Is there a reason you keep ignoring the parts of my responses where I ask about him? What about Story, morning glory?

That doesn’t discount “Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1” being one of those enumerated powers and not just a meaningless preface.

This seems to be your own creative interpretation of what is a text that is really about the Judiciary and not the Legislature. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 could be one of those "Certain cases particularly specified".

Sure. But that doesn’t support or not support the argument that the general welfare is limited by the powers in the clauses that follow it, just that its limited by the other parts of the clause that contain it.

A quick review of al the other first clauses in the Constitution reveals they are all with meaning yet the argument put forth by you and the Madison fan club is that the words “general welfare” are merely ornamental. Are there other word, excluding the preamble, in the Constitution you feel are ornamental and without meaning or power?

477

Justice Story’s opinions regarding the general welfare clause, as yours, are not those which were expressed during the framing and ratification of our Constitution. We are attempt to determine the meaning of the general welfare clause as it was understood during the framing and ratification of our Constitution.

Justice Story was about eight years old during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution, His opinions were written about 20 years after this event.

On the other hand, Madison actually participated in the framing and ratification debates and there is no reason to believe he repeatedly misrepresented the meaning of the general welfare clause, and especially not when neither Jay or Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers or State Ratifying Conventions, offered a contradicting meaning regarding the general welfare clause as repeatedly given by Madison.

In regard to this see First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Loomis, 97 F.2d 831 (7th Cir. 1938) In which Circuit Judge Sparks confirms in a dissenting opinion :

So far as we are informed Madison is the only witness whose testimony prior to the adoption is preserved, in relation to the Convention’s intention with respect to the general welfare clause. There may be other such testimony, but it is not relied upon in the decided cases. Certainly there is none other more worthy of belief, and it enjoys the distinction of having been approved by both Hamilton and Jay, and questioned by no one, prior to the adoption, except those who were fearful of subsequent legal construction to the contrary.

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

478

What lies attributed to exactly who, and can you be more specific as to who is a commie and the difference between commie, socialist and Social Security? Thanks.

Also, perhaps you can explain why conservatives appear to be okay with government regulation of interest rates, and Trump’s addition to the deficit?

479

But his opinions are based on the writings and words of those expressed during the framing and ratification… he didn’t just pull them out of thin air.

Regardless, he’s only one person. I’m pretty sure you’ve said previously that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the common meaning and understanding of these words at the time of the framing and ratification. Now it seems that you’re saying unless someone has clearly argued against his position, his position is the right one. Are all other commentaries on the clause required to be viewed as responses to Madison and not stand on their own?

“Dissenting opinion”.
And his statement again seems to be supporting the idea that Madison is a singular voice to rule over all other voices. Were they approved by Jay and Hamilton affirmatively, or is said approval based on their Federalist entries not countering Madison position?

480

Once again you post plenty of opinions concerning the meaning of the general welfare clause, but neglect to offer a shred of evidence from the framing and ratification debates to support your opinions and conclusions.

The question remains: If the Anti-Federalists, during the framing and ratification of our Constitution feared the general welfare clause could lead to an unlimited grant of legislative power, which they did, and the Federalists assured the Anti-Federalists the Constitution was not intended as such, nor intended to allow the federal government to intrude upon the internal affairs of the states and exercise power over the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State, how can one honestly arrive at the conclusion the general welfare clause allows the very action feared by Anti-Federalists, which the Federalists assured was not intended?

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

481

That’s the whole ■■■■■■■ point of why I brought of Story. He does.

Because it doesn’t lead to an “unlimited grant of legislative power”. The legislative power in this clause is limited in that it must be for the “general welfare” and done via laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and that all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.

482

Once again you post plenty of opinions concerning the meaning of the general welfare clause, but neglect to offer a shred of evidence from the framing and ratification debates to support your opinions and conclusions. If you have something specific from the framing and ratification debates to support your opinion, then post those passages as I have done, e.g.:

Hamilton explains a fundamental principle In Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution during the ratification debates.

Hamilton, and in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority “ Hamilton states:

The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

Hamilton then goes on to apply the principle with an example:

“In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 is immediately followed by “certain cases particularly specified” , and the “specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.”

And, moving forward we find Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443, regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…”

Similarly, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention cautions the convention:

“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the meaning of the general welfare clause, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress, or the Courts, to extended the federal government’s powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

It must also be noted why 12 Amendments, which includes the Tenth Amendment, were sent to the states for ratification.

In answer to this question we find the answer in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

The bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to intentionally keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the State’s internal affairs. And, as previously documented, those affairs include “… the power over the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State,”

So, where is your evidence from the framing and ratification debates to establish the general welfare clause allows Congress to tax for, spend on, and regulate the people’s healthcare in the various United States?

If the Anti-Federalists, during the framing and ratification of our Constitution feared the general welfare clause would lead to an unlimited grant of legislative power, which they did, and the Federalists, Hamilton and Madison, both assured the general welfare clause was intended to be limited to a “specification of particulars” which appears beneath the Clause, how can one honestly arrive at the conclusion the general welfare clause was intended to grant a general legislative authority to Congress?

You post plenty of opinions concerning the meaning of the general welfare clause, but neglect to offer any evidence from the framing and ratification debates to support your opinions and conclusions.

JWK

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], 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, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.