Chronology Matters

Jeff,

I've used the argument you are describing several times, though I didn't phrase it as well as you just did.

As Tom Woods has said, if the General Welfare clause was meant to empower Congress to pass any federal law it felt was in the best interest of the people, it would render the listing of specific powers "..absurd and nugatory".

You said the same thing when you wrote, "If general Welfare was meant to be 'anything it thinks is good,' then, there was no need to insert a list of powers. They could have put a period right after the word “Welfare,” and it would have saved time, ink and paper.

A correct interpretation is, as Madison said, one which does not use the phrase “general Welfare” as a power itself, but instead uses the phrase to describe the powers listed below."

Words worth plagiarizing and even memorizing! Thank you!

Derek, when presenting the argument, you really don't need to go so far as original intent and history to understand and make a clean point. If Congress was to have the power to do anything it felt was in the general Welfare, then, why did they then follow that phrase with a list of specific powers? Isn't it in the general Welfare to establish a currency, regulate trade among the states, make bankruptcy laws, etc.?

Of course, it is. If general Welfare was meant to be "anything it thinks is good," then, there was no need to insert a list of powers. They could have put a period right after the word "Welfare," and it would have saved time, ink and paper.

A correct interpretation is, as Madison said, one which does not use the phrase "general Welfare" as a power itself, but instead uses the phrase to describe the powers listed below.

I hope that helps.

Great blog post! I also take Mr. Boldin's admonishment to learn and insist on the original meaning of words and phrases used in the Constitution seriously.

However, when debating someone who has neither the time or inclination to establish the 18th century meaning of words, the chronology argument seems like almost an airtight case. I've debated with people over HR 3200 (the original Obamacare bill) and quoted the bill word for word where the language is very clear. In spite of this, I still had people tell me that although they were reading the same words I was reading, they did not agree that they meant what they clearly meant. In such cases, other tactics must be employed.

It seems like the chronology argument can be very effective, but maybe it should be preceded with Madison's quote or a quick assertion that "even though there was really nothing about the general welfare clause that gave Congress that power {national health care, social security, medicare etc} even if it had, the 10th Amendment amended article I and the entire preceding constitution so it settles any interpretational conflict."
.

Bryce, definitely an important principle to understand - that amendments modify what was there previously.

But even more important is knowing the meaning of the clause(s) that is potentially being amended.

To explain anything in the constitution, it's necessary to look at the full "originalism" of it. That means:

1. finding the original meaning of the words in the 18th century (which is often quite different than today). 18th century dictionaries are invaluable!

2. finding the original intent of the authors - reading their writing to find out what they mean by the particular words

3. finding the original understanding of the ratifiers - as they were the ones that gave it force. This would mean studying the ratifying debates and more for a proper understanding.

In looking at all this - you get the overall original understanding of the true meaning of many clauses of the constitution.

As far as the "general Welfare" clause - there was really nothing to be amended by the 10th Amendment. It was intended - and understood - as a strong limitation on the power of the federal government.

For starters, here's what James Madison, the "father of the Constitution" had to say about it:

“With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”