Talk:General welfare clause

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Why does the US section stop at 1936? The General Welfare Clause has played an important role in recent cases, such as the 2012 case, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I have begun a new page on this as a general concept, see Talk:Taxing and Spending Clause for discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States section starts out saying that, "the U.S. Supreme Court has held: ... that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government."

But it ends saying, "Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law."

While the former statement might have been true in the 1800s, it is no longer true and should be made consistent witht he latter statement. 75.166.210.164 (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to resolve the contradiction with this edit. 75.166.210.164 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. Story made no assertion as to whether the courts could or could not review Congressional spending for its propriety. The Helvering case backed away from any judicial role, leaving it to Congress to decide what are proper objects upon which to exercise its spending power, and leaving it to voters to hold them accountable for those choices. That's the expansion the old entry meant. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The supreme court's opinion above endorses Story's endorsment of the Hamiltonian view; that the Clause IS an independent grant of power. The current text -- "Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power" is spurious nonsense. Esplainin2do (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current text of this article quotes Story's summary of the bogus argument against the Hamiltonian view, an argument Story rejects utterly. See Story's REAL conclusion here, in paragraphs 974 through 988.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s28.html Esplainin2do (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiton had TWO arguments, of which Story rejected one and accepted the other. Hamilton's first argument was offered at the Philadelphia Convention, for which he got shut down. Hamilton was so butthurt by that he left the Convention and didn't comeback until close to the very end. Hamilton's second argument, which Story accepts, was from Hamilton's 1791 Report on Manufactures. The footnote in the Butler decision cites section 907 ff, so you aren't even looking in the right place. Additionally, find a verifable third-party citiation for your assertion about what Story's "real" conclusion was. Otherwise, don't make unilateral, unsourced changes to the article. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Foofighter's "The footnote in the Butler decision cites section 907 ff, so you aren't even looking in the right place. WRONG. Footnote in the Butler decision specific to the language at issue cites the entire chapter XIV passim (meaning 'here and there'), thusly: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/1/case.html#F12 Esplainin2do (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest comment of them all. You are aware that the chapter starts with section 903, right? And that ff. means "and the following pages. *facepalm* you really aren't familiar with Story's material, are you? I'll concede that my statement and the Court's footnote are not identical, but the are virtually the same as they direct to cover essentially the same thing. wow, man. wow. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Section 988 has a footnote which cites Hamilton's Reports on Manufactures; see here [1]. So, please, discuss before making unsourced WP:OR edits to the article, especially when there's an authoritative source to the contrary of your assertion: Senate Document No. 108-17 [2], page 163 [183/2628]. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The comment WAS sourced, in both the original and in my edit (and also in my edit here). I am referring to SAME source that's already in the article, just correcting the WRONG interpretation of that source! The funny thing is, the "authoratative source to the contrary" that you now cite actually contradicts YOU, thusly:

"Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States."

Can you explain to me please, exactly how this UNSOURCED nonsense; "Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power" is supported by any of the references cited in the article? Where, exactly, do you think that Story concluded this? EVERY REFERENCE PRESENTLY CITED, INCLUDING YOUR OWN, CONTRADICTS YOU. How do you manage to interpret this language; "clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated" to somehow mean "not an independent grant of power" WTF?!?!?! Please change the article text back to be consistent with the sources, as I left it. Esplainin2do (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now finally, the section I changed referred to the Supreme Court ruling and opinion that endorsed the Hamiltonian view, as it was espoused in Justice Story's interpretation. I cited the exact document that the Supreme Court referenced, which document is also referenced in the article. Whatever footnotes are in Story's document are utterly irrelevant, the Supreme Court was endorsing Story's INTERPRETATION, not his FOOTNOTES. Esplainin2do (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draft edits

There's no cause to cut out a reliably and verifiably sourced portion on how there are two mention of general welfare in the constitution, and that the primary legal focus is on the latter. Additionally, there's no cause to make a statement here in the talk page and then wait an unreasonable short amount of time to make the edit changes. The world doesn't revolve around you, and people have lives. You need to build consensus. Don't expect it will be done overnight, or even within a few hours. Make your claim here on the talk page, then wait a while to see if you get a well-argued response. Consensus usually takes more than a week to build. If you're lucky, it doesn't take more than a month. (I've experienced longer waits, myself.) Thankfully, I don't have much to do right now outside of work, so I can respond reasonably quickly. However, tonight I happened to be busy. So, let's work as a team, not at cross-purposes as antagonists, ok? Further, bolding your statements for emphasis doesn't help you any. It looks like you are trying to bully as opposed to attempting to advocate. Relax. We'll get this worked out, but I'm getting a vibe that you have an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, and that's got to stop. I'm willing to grant that's not your intent, but that's how you are coming across. For now, keep it to the talk page and we'll get it sorted. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - there is no reason to remove sourced information. If there are contradictory views, we can present both and the evidence cited in support of both, and allow the reader to decide which they prefer. bd2412 T 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FooFighter, you did not undo your revert. I did it for you. If you still have questions, please TALK about them. In the meantime, you should perhaps consider reading (or re-reading as the case may be) the following reference #2; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#References Esplainin2do (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The undo I performed was not to undo a revert I made. It was to undo a change I made on the page that I had intended to do here on the talk page. The article page itself needs to remain at the status quo ante, and changes we are to make need to be hugged out here on the talk. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Wrong is wrong. Unsourced is unsourced. You don't own this article, though you spout rules of your own making that present that facade. Knock it off and source your assertions. With a little effort, you won't need more than a few minutes, much less "a month, if you're lucky". ROF, LOL! Esplainin2do (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the additional sources I've added that pinpoint where Story made the assertions which are described in the article. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. The bogus statement "Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power" is flatly contradicted by your own sources, as well as every relevant source in the article. It's a total fabrication and it is 180 degrees in the opposite of Story's actual conclusion, which I have already sourced and double-sourced. You have ignored this fact repeatedly. You have NOT provided a source that supports this, why are you misrepresenting that you did? Esplainin2do (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the other questions presented above, Espy: it appears from Story's own work (cited in the draft above) that he actually adopted Jefferson's view of both the clause as a whole and the taxing power, but squeezed in Hamilton's view of the spending power; Justice Roberts may have elided that in the Butler opinion. However, in order to say that in the article, there would have to be a reliable and verifiable, independently published thrid-party making that statement. Alas, this issue is such small legal potatoes that I doubt I'd find one. Thus, I stick to what the sources themselves say, and make no implications. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What??? The text in question says correctly that the Supreme Court endorsed Story's interpretation, and the full text of this source to which this statement refers makes it PERFECTLY clear that Story "espoused" the Hamiltonian view. How is this not clear to you? Esplainin2do (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FooFighter, don't you think that Story's clear and direct pronouncement in § 913, and the subsequent ridicule he expressed for the argument you seem to support in § 916 should settle this once and for all. Today? http://www.constitution.org/js/js_314.htm Esplainin2do (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep you waiting. The answer to this is "no." The sections you cite were in refutation of several specific arguments, the first two of which (in § 911) attempted to tie the Const. GWC to the AOC GWC. Only the first argument was Madison's, and it was never publicly made (notice Story's footnote citing a letter). Story refutes that argument in the back half of § 911.

• In § 912, he refutes the second argument, explaining that the AOC GWC was broader than the Const. GWC.
• In § 913, he appeals to the actual actions taken by the AOC Congress and shows how they never followed the Articles as they operated without them for nearly 6 years before AOC became effective in 1781.
• Midway—and mid-sentence—in § 914, Story shifts to a third argument, and dispatches that.
• In § 915, Story turns to an argument made by the Virginia legislature which claims the Const. GWC is a function of the other enumerated powers. This argument is what Story disproves in § 916.

As I said before, you need read these things more carefully. It seems you are just latching onto places where the search results popped up certain keywords you may have sought; it's as if you've not take the time to actually become familiar with the detail and context of what Story penned. It's your failure to have done so that is causing the misunderstanding here. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHOOPS. I made some further edits (which by now should be non controversial), but I forgot to log in. User editing from 71.63.252.230 is me! Esplainin2do (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing your own lack of knowledge and your own bias on this topic. You clearly haven't read Story closely or you would know that §913 is a ridicule of the argument that GWC had the same meaning as the GWC in the Articles of Confederation. That argument wasn't even a part the public Madison-Hamilton debate, which is what this Wiki article addresses. Additionally, you commit the genetic fallacy in attacking the Cato Institute as an unreliable source. The particular views of the authors/journals cited are irrelevant to Wikipedia's purposes and criteria for citation. I suggest you go brush up on WP:SOURCES. The only thing that matters is that it can be shown (1) a claim (2) was published (3) by an independent (4) third-party, and that such publication can be (5) verified. But, you are correct in that the cite attached to that sentence did not support the assertion in the article. So, I found you an unassailable source that did assert exactly what you claim is untrue. So, make sure to check the changes to the cites. Cheers. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Read the text in the reference I changed. The bogus cite was sourced to a book, but pointed to the opinions of a book reviewer at the Cato institute. Story's 913 (taken as a whole) ridicules the Madisonian interpretation, which you and the incorrect text here support. Finally, the one critical source you keep ignoring is the Court's own language. At least THREE times now you have blatantly ignored this, does it help if I SHOUT?

"Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them...Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position...Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one."

THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF THE 1936 OPINION, IN THE COURTS OWN WORDS.

Yes, it is... on page 66. Keep reading. Make it through the opinion to page 68 as they elaborate further. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foofighter, Will you, please, RESPOND TO THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE LANGUAGE IN QUESTION Esplainin2do (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you aren't understanding what the GWC actually does. Look at the whole of the TASC: the power given is to tax. Taxing raises revenues. The existence of those revenues raised by taxation implicate a power to spend them. Thus, in the taxing clause there is an implicit power to spend. The GWC cabins the taxing clause to the criteria listed there in. Therefore, it also cabins the implicit spending power by the same criteria. Thus, Congress may tax and spend (appropriate) according to those limitations. More narrowly, Congress may tax and appropriate for the general welfare. This is the argument Hamilton makes in the 1791 Report on Manufactures, distilled as best I can make.

What the clause does not do is contain a silent and following the comma after the word excises. That is, Congress does not have general power to make all laws which provide for the general welfare. That is, Congress, and by extension the rest of the federal government, does not have a general police power as we find in the states. When it is said that the GWC is not an independent grant of power, but is a qualification on the taxing power, that is what is meant: Congress does not have a general police power. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, removed/inserted sources the article referenced, but did not detail. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed one of your cites: ^[1] What I found is you have cherry-picked one sentence out of a discussion. It's meaningless and does nothing to support your case. Anyone here in disagreement? Esplainin2do (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the legal scholars chosen by the United States Senate are wrong? Please explain why. You can think of that datum as cherry-picked all you want, but as I said elsewhere, that is not in anyway relevant to how Wikipedia itself determines the value of what is a valid source for citation. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the Madisonion Interpretation:

§ 916. Stripped of the ingenious texture, by which this argument is disguised, it is neither more nor less, than an attempt to obliterate from the constitution the whole clause, "to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," as entirely senseless, or inexpressive of any intention whatsoever. Strike them out, and the constitution is exactly what the argument contends for. It is, therefore, an argument, that the words ought not to be in the constitution; because if they are, and have any meaning, they enlarge it beyond the scope of certain other enumerated powers, and this is both mischievous and dangerous. Being in the constitution, they are to be deemed, vox et preterea nihil, an empty sound and vain phraseology, a finger-board pointing to other powers, but having no use whatsoever, since these powers are sufficiently apparent without. Now, it is not too much to say, that in a constitution of government, framed and adopted by the people, it is a most unjustifiable latitude of interpretation to deny effect to any clause, if it is sensible in the language, in which it is expressed, and in the place, in which it stands. If words are inserted, we are bound to presume, that they have some definite object, and intent; and to reason them out of the constitution upon arguments ab inconvenienti, (which to one mind may appear wholly unfounded, and to another wholly satisfactory,) is to make a new constitution, not to construe the old one. It is to do the very thing, which is so often complained of, to make a constitution to suit our own notions and wishes, and not to administer, or construe that, which the people have given to the country. [Emphases supplied.]

Upon reading this, and upon reading the Court's language, the resolution to this conflict should be obvious. Esplainin2do (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section in Story's Commentaries is a refutation of an resolution of the Virginia legislature in 1800 (not to be confused with the Madison-backed Virginia Resolution of 1798). To quote Story's section by itself and to attribute it to Madison alone (who wasn't even in the Virginia legislature), is to take it out of context and change its meaning. Also, as described above, Espy is not understanding that by saying "GWC is not an independent grant of power" is equivalent to saying that "Congress has no power to make general legislation for the general welfare"; i.e., while Congress certainly has a power to spend money for the general welfare, as Hamilton advocated in his 1791 Report, and as the Court endorsed in Butler, Congress does not have a general police power as the states do. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is in the page: While the Federalist papers are considered an important contemporary account of the views and intentions of the founders[17], they are widely considered to have had little effect on the actual passage of the constitution.[18][19][20]

Reading reference 18, I do not see the claim that the Federalist papers had little effect. Matter of fact, I see the contrary claim. What does seem factual is that the Constitution had sufficient votes to pass prior to New York voting. However, I don't see this as evidence that the Federalist Papers (and the ideas expressed in them and presented in the convention while published in New York) had little effect. And there is NO support that this is "widely considered". I will strike the second half of this sentence unless there is some objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.177.43.149 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of the essays that became The Federalist only very rarely saw publication or reached audiences outside of New York. The people in other states, then, could not in sufficient numbers have read them. Thus, the essays can not be said to have had an effect on how those other citizens deliberated upon ratification. As the New York convention came late (New York was the eleventh state to ratify) and as the essays were almost entirely contained within New York, it's a pretty hard sell you are going to have to make to claim that those essay had any appreciable effect on informing the opinions of citizens in those states that ratified earlier than New York did. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it?

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Welfare_clause&diff=501845877&oldid=501822482

These are not fixes, this is a wholesale revert, his third in two days. User has utterly failed to support the language he defends. Esplainin2do (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Play nice. Not doing so can get you banned. WP:AGF. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There's a three revert rule here on Wikipedia as I understand it. As soon as you saw me counting your reverts, you changed tactics and re-pasted old text over new (instead of just hitting the revert button), and then you lied in your edit summary to camoflage your third revert, merely to dodge the rule! Do you think that anyone would look at this (for example):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Welfare_clause&diff=501845877&oldid=500143938

...and conclude that it is not (your third) a wholesale revert? Oh please...play nice? Don't make me laugh. Your lying is certainly not "playing nice". Esplainin2do (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:General welfare clause/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Substituted at 21:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General welfare clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806204245/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]