Steny Hoyer claims the “general welfare” clause in the constitution grants congress the broad authority to mandate healthcare coverage
If the founders could have looked into the future while they were writing and debating the constitution I believe that there is one phrase, which appears twice in the constitution, that they would have eliminated, or probably more accurately, modified– the “general welfare” clause.
Over the years the “general welfare” clause has been misconstrued in various ways to implement “social welfare” programs, this was not the intent of the “general welfare” clause. The “general welfare” clause was tied directly into the “national defense” clause.
In Federalist 41 Hamilton argued that the “general welfare” clause could not be used to expand the federal government beyond what was intended.
It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare…But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?…For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity
He explains that the “general welfare” clause is a general term immediately followed by strict guidelines of federal powers. Here are the only powers granted to the federal government under national defense and general welfare:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The general statement of “national defense and general welfare” was clearly defined right after the statement appears. Congress was only given 17 clearly defined powers.
But if Hamilton’s explanation is not enough to convince you I will provide a statement from Madison on the “general welfare” clause.
With respect to the words general welfare… 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
There is no more evidence that needs to be submitted to prove the argument that the “general welfare” clause was not meant to provide “social welfare.” The general welfare clause was a vague statement immediately followed by rules that should be followed to ensure the general welfare.
Almost since the adoption of the constitution judges have looked outside the constitution in attempting to interpret the constitution, some have even used the laws of foreign nations to interpret the constitution as they see fit. If one is to look outside the constitution to interpret what the founders intended than it would seem to me that we should look at the debates and the opinions that the Federalists had while fighting to ratify the constitution. That is what I have done here and I have proven that the founders did no have the intent to provide “social welfare” to citizens of the United States.
But that is exactly what has happened over the years and now House Majority leader Steny Hoyer is claiming that the “general welfare” clause grants congress the authority to force all Americans to buy healthcare insurance whether they want to or not. When he was asked where in the constitution he and congress found the authority to force Americans to purchase insurance he invoked the “general welfare” clause.
Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said. “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility
Certainly this is a perversion of the “general welfare” clause as argued by both Hamilton and Madison. When asked if the government could force people to buy other products he claimed that eventually the Supreme Court would have to find a limit to government power.
I’m sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit,
He has more faith in the Supreme Court than I do. Once the precedent is set that the government can force a person to buy anything they are not going to find a limit to what the government can force an individual to buy. Steny Hoyer claims that eventually the “due process” clause in the constitution will trump the “general welfare” clause in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
Steny Hoyer claims that forcing Americans to buy healthcare is constitutional because they can buy any healthcare plan from any insurance company that they want to but he forgets that the option not to buy healthcare insurance will be taken off of the table. That means one option is being taken away from the people.
The last time that the government tried to implement national healthcare the Congressional Budget Office even questioned the constitutionality of the proposal.
A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government
What has changed?
Steny Hoyer is trying to equate buying healthcare insurance to paying taxes in order to justify his position.
we mandate other things as well, like paying taxes
That is true but the power to levy taxes is actually one of the powers strictly granted to congress in the constitution. On a sidenote, is he admitting that healthcare reform is nothing more than a tax?
Steny Hoyer is desperately trying to find constitutional grounds to stand on for the attempt by the federal government to mandate healthcare insurance but the fact is that he has no constitutional grounds to stand on.
In the end a healthcare mandate will probably be passed and made into law. The question is will the Supreme Court hear arguments about the constitutionality of healthcare mandates? And if they do, will the Supreme Court find the limit that Steny Hoyer claims they will eventually? We better hope so.
Trackbacks
- Nancy Pelosi refuses to comment on where the constitutional authority is to mandate healthcare insurance « America’s Watchtower
- uberVU - social comments
- ACORN sues the government for refunding– do they actually have a case? « America's Watchtower
- Senator Jeff Merkley claims that congress’s first enumerated power gives congress the authority to mandate heathcare coverage « America's Watchtower
- Senator Lincoln claims the constitution “charges congress with the health and well-being of the people” « America's Watchtower
America's Watchtower 
This is a fine example of a politician playing fast and loose with the Constitution to make sure it says what he wants it to say. I have never heard such nonsense in my 47 years.
LikeLike
Hoyer’s comments are predicated on the assumption that Obamacare would be a benefit, and therefore contribute to the welfare of America. He’s really stretching it.
LikeLike
You are both right, they are really pushing the limits as to what the constitution is supposed to mean.
LikeLike
LMAO… Steny Hoyer… Who the hell names a kid *Steny*? 😛
Seriously, Hoyer is an Obamabot, and this Obamacare is going to KILL America, not promote the general welfare…
Unless that *general welfare* is the WELFARE STATE that Obama and Company are so ardently trying to foist off on this nation…
LikeLike
Over the years the liberals have used the general welfare clause to institute the welfare state.
LikeLike
Yes, but all of these liberals were “doo gooder socialist christians” that learned their trade in their local churches. All socialist legislation in this country is done by doo gooder christian men and women. That’s the problem.
LikeLike
Have you ever read the use of the word “welfare” as used in the debates for the Federal Constitution? In the beginning pages? Check it out if you can read. It appears to me that there is no anchor as to what “welfare” (simply put, not “general welfare”) implied and that it could have meant a welfare state. Also, it is a christian country of christian doo gooders that want to “do good’ for the people on behalf of their evil god that leads us to a “welfare state” to begin with. It does not matter if they are conservative or liberal, they are all socialist doo gooder christians wanting to get hold of each individual in a way as to “pin them” under the control of a moral government and make them be pure. This is the problem in amerika today as it has always been.
LikeLike
Its the same old story—liberal push for a liberal interpretation and conservatives for a strict constructionist view. Personally I think over the years the liberal generally get their way and many things not intended by the founders are now embraced by the federal courts as being the founders intentions. Even todays Court leans left as compared to earlier courts and with several new appointees it could swing wildly left toward unknown waters.
LikeLike
Agreed, the liberals have managed to expand the constitution over the years through liberal court decisions.
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter if it’s “general welfare” or “interstate commerce,” the final word on interpretation of the Constitution lies with the people.
LikeLike
The problem is that the people put people in charge who do not know what the constitution stands for.
LikeLike
Have you ever read the work regarding “strict construction vs. implied powers”? And Madison’s comments therewith? You might want to brush up on this information because you’ll find that there can be no such thing as “strict construction”. If that were the case, the Federal government would not exist today. It, like christian scripture, would become an impasse that would render it obsolete.
The first Impasse was, in case your not aware, was with Washington authorizing the National Bank. This was as liberal as can be because it is as unconstitutional as can be. What do you think about that?
LikeLike
Good info on the “general welfare” clause. It’s exactly what we need to hear. I wish our elected reps were interested in it.
LikeLike
Our reps don’t even care about the constitution any more. When was the last time a politician asked whether a bill was constitutional before passing it?
LikeLike
I must correct your errors of attribution and citation. In your post, you have supplied a quotation which you attribute to Hamilton in Federalist #14. This is grossly incorrect, unfortunately. The quotation is from Madison, and it is not in Federalist #14 at all; it appears in Federalist #41. In the former paper, Madison deals with another issue.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
So, your attribution obviously represents a transposition of numerals. How you arrived at the statement being from Hamilton escapes me, because it would be clearly inconsistent with his position regarding federal power.
LikeLike
I did quote Federalist #41, I wrote that I was quoting Federalist #41, I am not sure where you got the impression that I was quoting Federalist #14. However I do admit my mistake in attributing Hamilton as the author of 41, I got the quote from the internet and did not double check it with my copy of the Federalist Papers, that is my mistake and I apologize.
LikeLike
I don’t know where I got it either. 😉 Obviously, my brain misinformed me that it was Federalist #14. Sorry about that. You sure you didn’t edit the post. 🙂 I would have sworn you said #14.
There is a very good site called the Tenth Amendment Center. Have you seen it?
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
LikeLike
I promise that I didn’t edit the post. 🙂 I do have Federalist 10 and Federalist 14 linked to as a separate page, maybe you saw that.
I will check out the link.
LikeLike
I noticed the same thing and realized that the author was meaning to imply that this was Hamiltons “response” to Madisons letter. Not that Hamilton was the author of it. His choice of words can be misleading unless one takes a “careful” look at it one would think he was implying that Hamilton wrote the piece instead of Madison which is of course wrong.
LikeLike
Having made a necessary correction of your misattribution in my preceding statement, I have to agree, nonetheless, with your the heart of your position regarding the constitutionality of the health care bill.
You may be interested in my blog, which led me to your blog, as I was researching the General Welfare (“Tax and Spend”) Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
http://freedomfollies.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-compassion-through-coercion-3.html
LikeLike
Gain an insight in to the amazing world of Dr Alan D Price PhD here.
http://modeledbehavior.com/about/
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
LikeLike
I wonder did Dr Alan D Price PhD
Senior Clinical Psychologist, Department of Health, State of Hawaii.
http://amhd.org/
Former psychology faculty and professor at a number of universities, including Wesleyan University in Connecticut, California State University, Long Beach, California State University, Bakersfield, and Head, Psychology Program, Chaminade University of Honolulu.
Ph.D., Psychology, City University of New York; M.A. and B.A., Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles.
mention his great admiration for the former ” British ” MP, ( I really like the former bit ), Mr George Galloway ?
Galloway Incites Hatred on Arab TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NkQSeAyE0w
LikeLike
Actually, the war on drugs along with the Pure Food and Drug Act are the first steps towards National Health Care. These Acts are the foundation of National Health Care and once the ignorant public OVERLOOKS these Acts, the rest is just a matter of time.
LikeLike