Skip to main content

The Constitution, It's Critical to Understand It

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined," James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers. In fact, Congress has only 18 such powers, enumerated in Article I, section 8.

But since the New Deal, several of those provisions have been read as authorizing Congress to do far more than was ever imagined by those who wrote the Constitution. This has led to a government that’s effectively unlimited—and increasingly unaffordable. A new House rule requires members of the 112th Congress to cite specific constitutional authority when introducing any new legislation.

That’s a start, but restoring limited constitutional government will require more than simply "checking a box." If legislators respond to that requirement by reflexively citing the Constitution’s three most widely misunderstood clauses—the General Welfare, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses—they’ll violate the document they’ve sworn to uphold. Instead, to restore a constitutional culture and roll back intrusive government, it’s important that we understand those clauses as the Framers understood them:

THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE
Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1: Congress has the power to collect taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Contrary to modern readings, this clause doesn’t grant Congress an independent power to tax and spend for the "general welfare." If it did, there would be no need to enumerate any other powers.

Rather, it authorizes Congress to raise revenue in support of the specifically enumerated powers that follow it. And Congress’s power to tax for the "general welfare" precludes it from taxing to provide for special parties or interests.

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3: "[Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce … among the several States."

Nor was the Commerce Power designed to provide Congress an open-ended mandate to regulate anything and everything that "affects commerce." Instead, the Framers aimed at creating a national "free-trade zone," putting an end to the interstate protectionism allowed under the Articles of Confederation. To ensure free trade among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate, or "make regular," such commerce—the main sense of "regulate" at the time. If the clause had been understood to grant Congress the boundless regulatory power it exercises today, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE
Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18: "[Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."

This clause grants Congress the means to execute its enumerated powers or ends. It adds no new ends. And those means must be "necessary and proper."
That means they must respect the Constitution’s structure and spirit of limited government, they must respect federalist principles, and they must respect the rights retained by the people.

A word from Ed Crane - Founder and President of the Cato Institute.

"I thought you'd enjoy seeing the attached ad we've run in the Washington Post, Politico and a couple of other papers. It’s good that the GOP wants the House to cite the constitutional authority for new legislation, but there is a danger the response will be a casual reference to the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause. This ad points out (for the benefit of Congress) the true intent of those clauses, including the Necessary and Proper Clause. The work of our excellent Center for Constitutional Studies. Hope you like it."


Filed by Grant Davies,
Regular Columnist, THL
Articles | Author's Page | Website

Popular posts from this blog

My 2011 Trip

Hey Patriots! Hope your New Year is off to a good start! I am multitasking my head off to prepare for a trip around the country of indefinite length and scope starting next week. I'll be headed for Colorado first where I'll investigate medical cannabis laws and their effects; then I'll be flying out to Washington DC for the month of February to attend CPAC and ISFLC; and after that I'll move north to New Hampshire to spend March hanging with members of the Free State Project and learning more about it. I'm not positive what's next after that, but I've got a general inkling, and it might involve venturing overseas to learn a little more about the broader world around us and relay everything I see to you readers here at The Humble Libertarian ! Wish me luck and keep your eye out for updates as I travel. Peace, Wes Wes Messamore , Editor in Chief, T H L Articles | Author's Page

I've Been an Outspoken Critic of Censoring Conservatives, But I'm Not Leaving Patreon Over Sargon of Akkad's Ridiculous Remarks

By: Wes Messamore The Humble Libertarian Photo: Gage Skidmore

Occupy Mordor or Destroy the Ring?

There has been mixed responses to Occupy Wall Street by libertarians. Some see the movement as a positive, while others see them as little more than lazy hipsters. But libertarians must be sensitive to why people feel the way they do about issues. The occupiers point out a legitimate concern that "the 1%" control vastly more power and wealth than "the 99%", and corporations have accumulated more power and privilege than is healthy for an open society. Some other concerns and demands are absurd, but the heart of the matter is on track. The question is why has this happened? While many on the left are quick to blame a nebulous thing called "greed", or lack of regulation, the matter is more complicated than that. This calls for a Lord of the Rings metaphor. Let's say that Sauron, the big cheese bad guy of Lord of the Rings, is the corporate hegemony. The 1%. Most people in Middle Earth agree that this is a problem, but there are a few differ...
–––As Featured On–––