Does this make Social Security constitutional?

[A18]

Article I, Section 8.
Clause 1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[John Dibble]

To the person who answered "No, but I don't care what the Constitution says" - you should therefore not care about the first amendment, so if Congress is forcing you to worship cabbage you better not care.

[The Duke]

Since scoial security involves both the taxing and spending power included in that provision, but no other activities, yes its constitutional.

[A18]

Since scoial security involves both the taxing and spending power included in that provision, but no other activities, yes its constitutional.

It just says that Congress can tax and pay the debts. It doesn't say every debt is legal.

[The Duke]

Since scoial security involves both the taxing and spending power included in that provision, but no other activities, yes its constitutional.

It just says that Congress can tax and pay the debts. It doesn't say every debt is legal.

Article I, Section 8.
Clause 1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The constitution grants congress the pwer to spend money on the general welfare and to lay taxes for this purpose.  The Congress is not restricted to laying taxes only for paying off debt.

It really couldn't be any more explicit than that.

[Bono]

Since scoial security involves both the taxing and spending power included in that provision, but no other activities, yes its constitutional.

It just says that Congress can tax and pay the debts. It doesn't say every debt is legal.

Article I, Section 8.
Clause 1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The constitution grants congress the pwer to spend money on the general welfare and to lay taxes for this purpose.  The Congress is not restricted to laying taxes only for paying off debt.

It really couldn't be any more explicit than that.

Do you really think the framers meant as general welfare things like social security?

[John Dibble]

Since scoial security involves both the taxing and spending power included in that provision, but no other activities, yes its constitutional.

It just says that Congress can tax and pay the debts. It doesn't say every debt is legal.

Article I, Section 8.
Clause 1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The constitution grants congress the pwer to spend money on the general welfare and to lay taxes for this purpose.  The Congress is not restricted to laying taxes only for paying off debt.

It really couldn't be any more explicit than that.

Do you really think the framers meant as general welfare things like social security?

'General welfare' is an unfortunately broad term. What I think they meant was the other powers enumerated as being what was needed for the general welfare. If they had any idea that this clause would be abused because of that, they probably would have worded it differently.

[Bono]

Since scoial security involves both the taxing and spending power included in that provision, but no other activities, yes its constitutional.

It just says that Congress can tax and pay the debts. It doesn't say every debt is legal.

Article I, Section 8.
Clause 1: 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The constitution grants congress the pwer to spend money on the general welfare and to lay taxes for this purpose.  The Congress is not restricted to laying taxes only for paying off debt.

It really couldn't be any more explicit than that.

Do you really think the framers meant as general welfare things like social security?

'General welfare' is an unfortunately broad term. What I think they meant was the other powers enumerated as being what was needed for the general welfare. If they had any idea that this clause would be abused because of that, they probably would have worded it differently.

Exactly. The powers explicited after were those that they considered contributing for the general welfare, otehrwise it would be stupid to place the 10th ammendment there. I have no idea who wrote that part of the costitution, but he must be turning on his grave.

[A18]

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14
 
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45
 
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792
 
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"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

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

I also found this online:

Perhaps the greatest irony in the issue of welfare came from a statement by the Father of Big Government, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt, a man known for giving in on his previous word and selectively compromising his beliefs, not to mention the Constitution, in pursuit of an agenda. Roosevelt took to the podium on March 2, 1930 to talk about states rights as Governor of New York. In this speech, printed in entirity on March 3, 1930 by the New York Times, he had this to say:
 
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

FDR refers to Prohibition of Alcohol, which in 1930 was a legal power of Congress granted by now cancelled Amendment 18 and enacted by the Volstead Act. Speech transcribed in the New York Times, March 3, 1930.

[David S]

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14
 
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45
 
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792
 
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"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

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

I also found this online:

Perhaps the greatest irony in the issue of welfare came from a statement by the Father of Big Government, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt, a man known for giving in on his previous word and selectively compromising his beliefs, not to mention the Constitution, in pursuit of an agenda. Roosevelt took to the podium on March 2, 1930 to talk about states rights as Governor of New York. In this speech, printed in entirity on March 3, 1930 by the New York Times, he had this to say:
 
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

FDR refers to Prohibition of Alcohol, which in 1930 was a legal power of Congress granted by now cancelled Amendment 18 and enacted by the Volstead Act. Speech transcribed in the New York Times, March 3, 1930.

Great job of research on this one Philip. You nailed it!

[The Duke]

The Constitution palces no restrictions on either the power of spending or taxation. Social Security is hardly a broad interpretation of the Constitution.  Unless of course, you don't believe the congress has the power to spend or the power to tax.

Its nice that you can find lots of quotes, I know how to use google too.  The real test is whether you can understand those quotes.

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

And among those provisions ar ethe powers to tax and to spend.
 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

Principally, he says.  Notice he doesn't say limited to.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

This quote is not relevant here.  No exception has to be made for social security, since it falls under the powers to tax and to spend.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Among those that have been enumerated are the powers to tax and spend.

"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

Again, no general authority is required.  Only the authority to tax and to spend.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

I can.  The power to tax and the power to spend on the general welfare.


You keep producing various quotes, all of which rephrase the same idea.  That the government has only enumerated powers, and that social security falls outside those enumerated powers.  Yet you have never provided sufficient evidence to claim that social security does in fact fall outside the enumerated powers, since among those powers are taxation and spending.  Proving that social security contains some provision or activity not covered by those two powers is a prerequisite for your argument being valid.  You have yet to do this that I can see.

[John Dibble]

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Among those that have been enumerated are the powers to tax and spend.

The power to spend is only to spend on those things enumerated, not the power to spend on anything they damn well please. There would be absolutely no point in having any of those other things enumerated if Clause 1 meant they could tax and spend on anything they liked, unless of course they were enumerated restrictions - do the other enumerated powers look like restrictions to you?

[The Duke]

I quote from section 8.

Clause 18: 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.

It does not appear tat the founders viewed the Congress as having only the power to spend on items directly stemming from enumerated powers in section 8, otherwise why put the boldfaced section in there.

[A18]

Well, Congress is given power in other parts of the Constitution. For example:

Article I, Section 4.
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Article II, Section 1.
Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Article IV, Section 3.
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

[John Dibble]

I quote from section 8.

Clause 18: 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.

It does not appear tat the founders viewed the Congress as having only the power to spend on items directly stemming from enumerated powers in section 8, otherwise why put the boldfaced section in there.

What Phillip said covers that pretty well. The 'foregoing powers' would be the ones listed previous to clause 18, and 'all other powers vested by this Constitution' may apply to ones afterwards, such as amendments that give Congress new powers(such as the now repealed prohibition amendment). It does not apply to powers not listed in the Constitution.

[A18]

Keep in mind that this is one of the foregoing powers:

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So it can't be talking about it. It has to be talking about the other powers specifically given in the Constitution. The only other interpretation I can think of would be to say that Congress has the general powers noted in the Preamble.

[The Duke]

Philip, stop quoting Thomas Jefferson.  He was an anti-Federalist, meaning his view of the constitution was the exact opposite of the Federalists who actually authored the document.  A Jefferson quote means nothing.

Even under the strictest reading of Section 8, addressing the general welfare is specifically enumerated, and the congress is explicitly authorized to both tax and spend in an effort to achieve this goal.

General welfare is a borad phrase, and it was written that way for a reason.

[A18]

True, Jefferson was an anti-Federalist, but Madison and Hamilton also shared the viewpoint that the General Welfare refers to the enumerated powers below.

[John Dibble]

Philip, stop quoting Thomas Jefferson.  He was an anti-Federalist, meaning his view of the constitution was the exact opposite of the Federalists who actually authored the document.  A Jefferson quote means nothing.

Even under the strictest reading of Section 8, addressing the general welfare is specifically enumerated, and the congress is explicitly authorized to both tax and spend in an effort to achieve this goal.

General welfare is a borad phrase, and it was written that way for a reason.

The Federalists would be disgusted by the size of the federal government as it is today.

You'll also notice that he quoted Madison, who is regarded as the father of the Constitution.

"General welfare" is indeed a broad phrase, which is why they bothered to specify which powers entailed "general welfare".

[David S]

Philip, stop quoting Thomas Jefferson.  He was an anti-Federalist, meaning his view of the constitution was the exact opposite of the Federalists who actually authored the document.  A Jefferson quote means nothing.

Even under the strictest reading of Section 8, addressing the general welfare is specifically enumerated, and the congress is explicitly authorized to both tax and spend in an effort to achieve this goal.

General welfare is a borad phrase, and it was written that way for a reason.

I believe Philip is right. In Federalist #41 Madison basically says the terms "common defense and general welfare" are general terms and the specifics are separated from the general terms by no longer a pause than a semi-colon. He says that the general terms do not confer an unlimited power on congress.
Beyond that I would ask if social security, welfare and such were permitted why didn't they happen in the time of the founders? They didn't happen until the 1930s.
Philip has cited several of the founders in making his point.
John Ford can you cite any writings by the founders to prove your point?

[A18]

The anti-Federalists argued that this gave the Congress a blank check -- the power to spend money on whatever it wanted. Madison disputed that:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

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.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

[The Duke]

Philip, stop quoting Thomas Jefferson.  He was an anti-Federalist, meaning his view of the constitution was the exact opposite of the Federalists who actually authored the document.  A Jefferson quote means nothing.

Even under the strictest reading of Section 8, addressing the general welfare is specifically enumerated, and the congress is explicitly authorized to both tax and spend in an effort to achieve this goal.

General welfare is a borad phrase, and it was written that way for a reason.

I believe Philip is right. In Federalist #41 Madison basically says the terms "common defense and general welfare" are general terms and the specifics are separated from the general terms by no longer a pause than a semi-colon. He says that the general terms do not confer an unlimited power on congress.
Beyond that I would ask if social security, welfare and such were permitted why didn't they happen in the time of the founders? They didn't happen until the 1930s.
Philip has cited several of the founders in making his point.
John Ford can you cite any writings by the founders to prove your point?

They didn't happen in the time of the founders because no country had a welfare state.  The philosophical developement was a spinoff of socialism, which did not appear in a serious form until the early to mid 1800s.

I don't have quotes from founders, but the ACTIONS of the founders.  Hamilton and the First Bank of the US, for example.  Nowhere is it authorized for such an institution to exist in the enumerated powers as explicitly as Philip demands it to authorized, yet the founders themselves set this institution up.  The power to acquire new territories was carved out of the much narrower treaty power, and first was invoked by Thomas Jefferson.  The BEHAVIOR of the founders speaks much louder than any quote I pull up on google and take out of context.

The anti-Federalists argued that this gave the Congress a blank check -- the power to spend money on whatever it wanted. Madison disputed that:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

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.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

The sentiments of Madison are not of particular importance.  What is important is the actual text of the Constitution and what it authorizes.

Furthermore, the purpose of the Federalist papers calls into question the language here.  The purpose was to sell the Constitution to its opponents.  Can a political sales job be considered a greater bit of evidence for the meaning of this text of the Constitution than the text itself?  Or than the behavior of the founders themselves once the Constitution was ratified?  I think not.

[John Dibble]

1. We must agree that the founders, whether they were involved in writing the Constitution or not, were not in complete agreeance about the meaning of all of it. Just because some took actions that weren't in the Constitution does not mean that those actions were constitutional.

2. Thomas Jefferson agreed to buy the land, but he pretty much admitted that buying land was probably not constitutional. And do consider that people change their minds, or that they might do something just because they want to. Hamilton may have started the bank, even knowing it was unconstitutional just because he thought it was a good idea at the time.

As far as I'm concerned, you can argue this all you want. But virtually all of the founding fathers were for a much less centralized government than we have today. We don't know how they would react to the idea of government welfare as a concept, but I'm pretty sure they'd have it be a power of the states and not the federal government.