Ron Paul Schools Chris Wallace on the Constitution
A review of the discussion between Ron Paul and Chris Wallace regarding "General Welfare". by Fearless Citizen
(libertarian)
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
This past Sunday, Ron Paul made a stop to talk with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. It really brought to light in my mind the fact that most of us Americans do not understand the Constitution well enough to fully understand what Ron Paul is saying...myself included. After doing a quick bit of homework and a bit of thinking, it is my goal to clarify Ron Paul's thought. I don't claim to speak for Ron Paul but the following is to the best of my understanding, his line of reasoning.
The main discussion of the interview, centered on the Constitution, was regarding the so-called "general welfare" clause in Article 1 Section 8 and how it relates to the Social Security entitlement program. Paul says that Article 1 Section 8 does not allow for a federally run social program that is basically income insurance. Chris Wallace then pushed the conversation by stating that the so-called "general welfare" clause allows it:
"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;"
At face value it would appear that Chris Wallace is right, but his "shoot from the hip" analysis is not correct based on the quick research I've turned up.
Wallace's assertion, which is the same as many other politicians and citizens, is that the "general welfare" statement is a blank check for congress to make law and spend money on whatever it likes. Ron Paul disagrees with this completely and there is significant evidence to show that this "carte blanche" interpretation was never intended by the founding fathers.
To Ron Paul's argument:
There would be no need for an enumerated list of congressional powers (Article 1 Section 8) if the "general welfare" statement was meant to be a blank check.
There would be no need for the 9th or 10th Amendments if the "general welfare" statement was meant to be a blank check.
9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th: "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."
It is a powerful point. Why would the framers of the Constitution create a list of powers and then throw in a "general welfare" statement that allows congress ANY power, and then further say that the rights not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and people? It makes no sense and is clear that their intention was NEVER to allow congress to have powers beyond those enumerated. If the "general welfare" statement was meant to cover anything under the sun, then the individual states and citizens would have no powers and would make the 9th and 10th Amendments a contradiction to Article 1 Section 8.
Further evidence comes from the Federalist Papers, written from October 27, 1787 through May 29, 1788. The Federalist Papers were written between the writing of the Constitution and the ratification by the individual states and provide much insight into the thinking of our founding fathers. The dates here are important so that we know what the mindset was prior to ratification.
In Federalist #41, Madison writes:
"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 defence 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 defence 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 by 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."
It's important to note that this was a reply to the Anti-Federalists that had expressed deep concerns about the "general welfare" statement and the possibility that it would lead to unlimited abuse of the power. The fact that both side of the debate on the Constitution were in agreement that the role of congress must be limited to the powers enumerated...not given a blank check, drives home the point completely.
During the discussion between Paul and Wallace, Wallace pushed even further by bringing up a 1937 Supreme Court case (Helvering v. Davis) in which the court decided that Social Security was allowed under Article 1 Section 8. The fallacy of this argument is the assumption that the Supreme Court was correct in their interpretation. Based on the orginal intent of the founders, it does not appear that they were correct at all. Paul rightfully points out by analogy, that slavery was legal up to a point where it was realized by enough people that slavery is wrong, which as we all know led to the favorable abolition of slavery.
My hope is that enough people will read this, digest it, and come to the same conclusion that we've been doing it wrong for years. We've enabled those who would abuse the power to put us at the brink of financial collapse. I implore all of my fellow citizens to understand and take this argument to heart and then take it to their elected representatives (of all political classifications), who don't seem to understand what they are leading us into.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 52
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Fearless Citizen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Fearless Citizen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Fearless, I would submit that they know exactly what they are doing and have the belief that the American people have not the backbone to do anything about it.
Posted By: Dean Newman
Date: May 17, 2011 09:31:40 AM
Here's the whole thing. Makes the article a little easier to understand.
Section 8.
The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Posted By: George Dance
Date: May 17, 2011 01:10:26 PM
There's a famous (in libertarian circles) poem from the 1960s called "The Incredible Bread Machine," by (IIRC) R.W. Grant; in Part 2 of that there's a debate (in rhyme) between a libertarian and a non-libertarian that contains a couplet that's always stuck in my head:
You cite the Constitution's laws --
I cite the general welfare clause.
Just a reminder of how long they've been doing that.
