Kevrob
2017-01-04 18:40:14 UTC
"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"
That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to collectImposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"
money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the federal
government power to regulate local education.
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in education
would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".
With respect to the two 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.
James Madison, 1831
This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of
Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general
legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special
powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was
intended.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83
of interest, and illuminating, and may even offer some guidance, but
they are not gospel. Nor are they law. It would be unwise in the
extreme to insist on the personal interpretation of some 18th century
politicians, however worthy, to arrange the affairs of a 21st century
nation.
a.) Madison, the main architect of the Constitution and of
b.) Hamilton, the main theorist of the Federalist faction. While
Madison was a protege of Jefferson, and wound up in the nascent
Democratic-Republicans, the Federalists rivals in the "First
Party System."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_System
Hamilton was wont to support an expansive reading of the powers
of the Federal government, so if he and Madison, who wanted a
stronger central government than the US had under the Articles
of Confederation, but nothing as strong as Hamilton did, could
agree about the meaning, that view was non-controversial.
I would agree that using the "original meaning" interpretation:
what did those words mean at the time they were written, commonly,
or as is the case with legal terms, according to the accepted
meaning as used by courts and legislatures of the time. "Original
intent" is a step away from what was actually voted on.
Imposing contemporary meanings on decades or centuries old documents
is just silly, but people do it. (The "Living Constitution" crowd.)
Kevin R