Civics U: The General Welfare

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [emphasis added]

Article I, Secion 8k, Clause 1 the U.S. Constitution, often called the General Welfare Clause, then states, “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” [emphasis added]

In other words, Congress has power to collect taxes to promote and provide for the general welfare of the United States. But neither statement defines the phrase the general welfare or the means that are to be used to promote and provide for it.

At the same time, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “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.” [emphasis added] And several states mention the general or common welfare in their own respective constitutions.

There has thus been a tension between providing for the general welfare - also sometimes referred to as the common good – through federal government action, and protecting the respective powers and prerogatives of the states and the people. And there has been debate before, during, and since the adoption of the Constitution about whether the power of Congress to tax and to fund activities providing for the general welfare is limited or unlimited.

Two differing views of this were represented by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in their articles in The Federalist Papers written during debate on adopting the Constitution. Both Madison and Hamilton supported adopting the Constitution in order to strengthen the central government that they thought was too weak under the Articles of Confederation. But Hamilton favored granting the federal government power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation, and then worked to establish a national bank to help collect taxes and provide revenue to the government. Madison, on the other hand, believed that Congress should be allowed to spend funds only to carry out duties that were specifically identified in the Constitution. He wanted to restrict the powers of the federal government and protect the role and participation of states and citizens in government. Madison also argued, regarding the question of how much power the federal government was intended to have, that the Constitutional Convention and the people who then ratified the Constitution did not intend for there to be unlimited tax and unlimited power. (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html)

This question continues to be relevant today as the federal government spends an increasing amount of money on programs said to be in the national interest. The differences between Hamilton and Madison might be viewed as the source or foundation of current “liberal” and “conservative” political positions. Today liberals use the idea of providing for the general welfare to support many federal activities and expenditures, while conservatives often resist the same in the name of protecting state and local prerogatives and options and limiting the role of central or big government.

The “general welfare” clause can also be understood in two ways. It can be taken to refer to the welfare of citizens, and providing for their welfare can refer to providing for individual citizen needs. Or general welfare can be taken to refer to the welfare of the nation as a whole, and preserving and strengthening the nation as a system. Often these may be interrelated, even inseparable, such as in the case of the nation’s and the people’s health, peace, and safety. But the issues of taxes and what programs the federal government should fund and operate continue to be debated.

The debate is more than theoretical; it is very practical. Problems such as high taxes, expanding government, illegal immigration, poverty of individuals and communities, social decay, and inadequate housing call for solutions, whether such solutions come from the public or private sectors. Providing highways, health care, education, social security, unemployment compensation, safe and clean water and air, dams and reservoirs, police protection and court systems, election systems, libraries and public parks is expensive whether done by federal, state, or local government, and requires taxing people and business entities to obtain the needed funds.

And involved in these matters are complicated questions concerning justice and prosperity, equal opportunities vs. equal outcomes, a growing federal welfare state, the rights and freedoms of the states; and fundamental questions of people’s relationship to one another as a society, the people’s responsibility toward its members, and the freedom of individuals, families, and groups to be responsible for their own welfare. Ultimately these are questions for the people to understand and decide.

Lynn Huenemann

lhuenemann@q.com