The General Welfare Clause, Revisited

In 1817 when Madison was about to leave office, he vetoed a bill authorizing the building of roads and canals, saying that building roads and canals were a fine and worthy idea, but the Constitution would have to be amended first because no such authorization was enumerated.

Madison said that the use of the General Welfare clause would render “the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.”

Madison held the view that if Congress could do anything that improved the general well-being of the people, then why were specific items enumerated?

In 1792 Madison wrote of the General Welfare clause, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take care of religion into their own hands, they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish, and pay them out of the 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 for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress.”

Modernists supports a revisionist interpretation that would cause Madison heartburn. Madison wrote the general welfare clause to require the government to pass legislation for the general, not for the supplicants or special interest.

Congress, and the Supremes have interpreted the clause to mean both general AND special interest, and welfare to be charity. Soon they will declare black to mean white, and up to mean down.