The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

But first you have to agree on what constitutes "the general welfare."

Once you three have agreed on that you can then move on how best to provide and promote for it.

[lizziebith]

It seems obvious to me the usage of the word "promote" was stylistic (to avoid redundancy). From Encarta, "promote" and its antonyms:

promote (v)

Synonyms: advance, further, put forward, raise, upgrade, elevate

Antonym: demote


Synonyms: endorse, encourage, help, sponsor, stimulate, uphold, prop up, campaign for, support, foster

Antonym: suppress


Synonyms: disseminate, plug, advocate, push, market, make known, advertise, publicize, boost, propagandize

Antonym: defame


Synonyms: further, progress, move forward, stage, put on, organize, arrange

Antonym: prevent

Now, what can a government possibly do to "promote" general welfare -- disseminate motivational posters?

Unless the founding fathers were genuinely concerned enough about being perceived by the citizenry of demoting, suppressing, defaming, preventing or otherwise not being in favor of general welfare, and, as such, felt the need to declare that they were totally behind it, dude, hence the use of the word "promote."

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by lizziebith

It seems obvious to me the usage of the word "promote" was stylistic (to avoid redundancy).

Matter of opinion, certainly.

The general welfare clause....

Here's the problem. Madison (in Federalist 41) and Hamilton (in Federalist 30) disagree on the meaning of this phrase.

Madison says in Federalist 41 that this (the general welfare clause) fell in line with the same phrase in Article I, section 8, which is immediately followed by an enumeration of powers.

Originally Posted by Madison

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?

The general welfare clause is "explained and qualified" by the "enumeration of particulars." I happen to agree with this, as the Consitution is specifically NOT an enumeration of powers granted to the people, but a limitation on the powers of government.

Hamilton, however, in Federalist 30, says

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Its future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined .... There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies,as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible to safely limit that capacity.

Or to summarize, as we can't possibily know all that will happen, why restrict what the government is allowed to spend tax money on?

I think it is important to note, however, that this was far prior to the 16th amendment (income tax) and the tax revenues were from land owners and tarriffs only, and in the same vein the Hamilton said it was impossible to predict future contingencies, they had no way to predict that income would be nor how the taxes would be spent. It is also important to note that Jefferson agreed with the Madison view. Madison was far more outspoken and wrote much more on the subject than did Hamilton (i'll spare you the numerous and lengthy quotes from Madison).

So while there was no general consensus among the founders, it is evident that most agreed with Madison (I can list more than Jefferson if anyone really wants me to). I prefer the Madisonian interpretation, but congress has gone with the Hamiltonian for quite some time (no brainer for them - they get to then use the money for political ends). Even with that being said, I thin Hamilton would be turning in his grave to see what has been spent in the name of the general welfare clause.