General Welfare

[Matt DilIon]

Actually, it started under FDR who instituted programs for poor children (Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)) and dependent persons as part of the Social Security Act of 1935.

https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-righ...erican history.
https://www.welfareinfo.org/history/


LBJ's Great Society was the start of large-scale programs.


Prior, you depended on family, community, charity, and in some cases, the state.

Prior to LBJ, just like I said. Just like my cousin told me that lived it.

[Newpublius]

The decision was left up to Congress to decide what constituted the general Welfare. The clause was not drafted with only the 18th century in mind, but whatever general welfare needs future Congresses may need to address.

It really wasn't, the Framers of the Constitution were very clear that the general welfare clause was not an independent delegation of authority. That included Hamilton by the way.

"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. " - Madison

Hamilton wanted more central authority but ultimately that's not what was being propounded and he agreed with the Federalists with respect to the argument being put forth by the Anti-Federalists and he would also say as such in the NY Convention as well.

After the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton wrote the Report on Manufacturers where he supported the notion that the GW clause was, in fact, a delegation of general authority.

But Hamilton's view was still in the minority and the Madisonian view prevailed, that is until the New Deal....

"Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler,297 U. S. 1, 297 U. S. 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. " - Helvering v Davis

This comes after FDR's threat to pack the court, a switch in time that saved nine.

[LescoBrandon]

Freedom and capitalism have lifted more people out of poverty than any other form of economy ever created by man (paraphrasing Milton Friedman). It's true.

Poverty is relative. When the "poor" can literally do no work, have more comforts than an English Duke from the 1800s, and have cell phones and cable TV, you know you've gone too far in providing the welfare.

[Dr. Who]

It really wasn't, the Framers of the Constitution were very clear that the general welfare clause was not an independent delegation of authority. That included Hamilton by the way.

"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. " - Madison

Hamilton wanted more central authority but ultimately that's not what was being propounded and he agreed with the Federalists with respect to the argument being put forth by the Anti-Federalists and he would also say as such in the NY Convention as well.

After the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton wrote the Report on Manufacturers where he supported the notion that the GW clause was, in fact, a delegation of general authority.

But Hamilton's view was still in the minority and the Madisonian view prevailed, that is until the New Deal....

"Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler,297 U. S. 1, 297 U. S. 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. " - Helvering v Davis

This comes after FDR's threat to pack the court, a switch in time that saved nine.

I expect that the lack of limiting language, reflected the division in opinion and it was left to future Congresses and the Supreme Court to iron out.

[Newpublius]

I expect that the lack of limiting language, reflected the division in opinion and it was left to future Congresses and the Supreme Court to iron out.

No, there was, they just made an arbitrary and capricious decision because they found it inconvenient.
Art I, sec 8 are the enumerated powers.

Madison wrote, "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."

[carolina73]

I expect that the lack of limiting language, reflected the division in opinion and it was left to future Congresses and the Supreme Court to iron out.

I disagree. Welfare as the left thinks about it is redistribution. General Welfare would mean for the good of the country. We did not even imagine welfare in he USA until we had to provide pensions to wives of Civil War soldiers. States have their own Constitutions.

[Captdon]

You can argue that the various forms of assistance keep people from resorting to crime to avoid homelessness and starvation, so it indeed benefits all.

No, it does not. I can't get welfare so it does nothing for me- or you.

[LescoBrandon]

People promoting "general welfare" as an excuse to steal from Peter to buy Paul's vote have to ignore the remainder of the Constitution to get there.

[Chris]

I expect that the lack of limiting language, reflected the division in opinion and it was left to future Congresses and the Supreme Court to iron out.

Not by usurpations of power but by amending the Constitution.

[Captdon]

Welfare, even then, meant for the good of.

Good for everyone, not just some. A canal is good for everyone. It helps transport goods to the entire country. Welfare checks are only good for those getting them.