Since the late eighteenth century this constitutional language has prompted debate over the extent to which it grants powers to Congress that exceed those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The precise meaning of the clause has never been clear, in large part due to its peculiar wording and placement in the Constitution.
The confusion about its placement arises because it makes up a part of the clause related to Congress's spending power, but does not specify if or how it affects that power. Due to the imprecise nature of the words and their placement in the document leave men arguing about the intent of our forefathers more than 200 years after the document signing.
At the time the Constitution was adopted, some interpreted the clause as granting Congress a broad power to pass any legislation it pleased, so long as its asserted purpose was promotion of the general welfare. One of the Constitution's drafters, James Madison, objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in their view the words themselves served no practical purpose.
In his famous Report on Manufactures (1791), Alexander Hamilton argued that the clause enlarged Congress's power to tax and spend by allowing it to tax and spend for the general welfare as well as for purposes falling within its enumerated powers. Thus, he argued, the General Welfare clause granted a distinct power to Congress to use its taxing and spending powers in ways not falling within its other enumerated powers.
The U. S. Supreme Court first interpretation of the clause was with the United States v. Butler (1936). In the courts majority opinion, Justice Owen Roberts, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control.
Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare.
It was further noted that the constitution established the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. Next there was Helvering v. Davis (1937), here the Supreme Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare.
In the Helvering case, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare.
And to date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.
The Supreme Courts expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause has rendered the question almost moot since Congress's authority, in practical terms, now reaches most of the concerns that might come under the rubric of “general welfare”.
As the nation expanded and problems began to spill over state borders, pressures increased for congressional action to deal with matters that could no longer be effectively handled at the state level. Since the Constitution nowhere permitted Congress to legislate in behalf of the public health, morals, safety, or welfare, it could do so only by indirection, by relying on a specified power that might be tied to the regulatory measure. It was the Commerce Clause that became the primary vehicle for such regulations.
Our country is steeped in rich history of “Constitutional Law”. Knowing our great history is powerful. “We the People” must not allow movement backward. Leaning forward together to compete in the world as a “Union of States”.
