Why Almost All Federal Welfare Entitlements are Unconstitutional

Instead of attacking the government's out of control spending and welfare entitlement programs on moral or fiscal grounds, I decided to step back and research whether the Constitution really allows any of it. In full disclosure, I am generally of the opinion that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of welfare or morality issues but I tried to be as objective as possible. Keep in mind that the premise here is that our federal government cannot do ANYTHING unless expressly allowed in the Constitution. Remember also that states have the right to enact entitlement laws so this is not an argument about whether certain entitlements should exist, but rather should they exist at the federal level.

It would follow that if the Constitution does allow the government to spend on anything it considers for the general good, then we're at the mercy of congress to potentially spend us into oblivion. Yep, we're well on the way now. On the other hand, if it does not allow it, then all other arguments about whether this or that federal entitlement should exist are moot.

Excluding military personnel benefits, I'll argue that the general welfare clause of the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to provide welfare programs such as healthcare, Social Security, student loans, etc. I am not arguing that we should do away with anything that's in place now although I believe we could and should.

Please note that there are portions of this that were lifted from a web site posting but I altered the wording for clarification.

According to James Madison in Federalist # 41, the statement of the power to tax and spend (Constitution Article 1, section 8) serves as a general statement in regards to the manners in which that general power is to be exercised and explicitly enumerated thereafter. In other words, "general welfare" is nothing more than a descriptive introduction to the *specific* enumerated powers that follow in the rest of Article 1, Section 8 and not a specific enumerated power.

For example, if the portion of the clause "to provide for the common defense" was indeed a standalone power, why would the founders then explicitly list a power "To raise and support armies"? It would be redundant. Does providing for the "common defense" exclude the raising and supporting of armies? Absolutely not. Therefore the only reasonable construction is that the power to raise and support armies is the explicit enumeration of the manner in which the general power to provide for the common defense is to be carried into effect.

We can then deal with the "General Welfare" portion of the clause in a similar manner. An example of the manner in which the General Welfare is to be promoted can be demonstrated by the power "To establish post offices and post roads". Again, any alternative construction renders the enumerated power redundant.

Lastly, the founders were very precise in their wording. They used the words "person" or "citizen" when speaking of individuals and the phrase "United States" or the word "union" when referring to the federation of states. The general power to tax and spend in Article I, Section 8 clearly states that the powers are directed at the "United States" not "persons" or "citizens" therefore the power applies only to objects which will promote the solidarity and prosperity of the union of states, not its citizens.

Remember that just because we provide things like Social Security and other federal welfare entitlements does not mean they are legal within the bounds of the Constitution. If you think that, you are committing something similar to a "Two Wrongs Make A Right" logical fallacy. If the premise of your argument is fundementally wrong, then the rest is irrelevant. Hey... the gov't has been doing "X" all along so of course they should do "Y"!

Let's look at an example of this fallacious reasoning:

A person takes candy from the bulk bin in the grocery store. Other people find out that there's "free" candy so they take some too. They are never caught but it is clearly illegal. Eventually they move on to the bulk peanuts, bulk rice, and so on. Then one day someone suggests they take apples from the produce display but someone questions this saying "Isn't taking apples wrong?". The misinformed response is "No, because we've been getting bulk candy, peanuts and rice for years. If they let us have that stuff, why not the apples too?". See how this is wrong because the original act - which justified apple stealing - was illegal in the first place?

In case you were too lazy to read all of it, below are the paragraphs (in full, not cherry picked out of context) from Federalist # 41 which support the idea that the general welfare clause is not all inclusive or a "free for all". Madison clearly points out how the sentences were constructed so as not to have people think those "general" statements were a blank check:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. 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. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the 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? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? 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, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

It is clear that the original intent and the construction of the articles do not give the federal government authority to provide welfare other than what is specifically enumerated. Any other interpretation is fallacious and relativist. The beauty of the language used in the Constitution is that it is simple enough for anyone with a basic grasp of English  to understand.

The power to deal with welfare issues is and should be left to the states and local jurisdictions.

Home