Congress: A Wealth-Eating Virus
04. Aug, 2009 
10 Comments
by Bob Greenslade
With the nation in the midst of an economic crisis, many groups and individuals are questioning the massive spending and so-called economic stimulus bills recently passed by Congress. This includes bailouts and appropriations known as earmarks and pork-barrel spending. Since the constitutionality of federal spending is never part of the debate, we need to re-visit Congress’ power to tax and spend.
The Taxing and Spending Clause
Congress’ power to tax and spend is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America. This Clause grants Congress 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.”
Constitutional Purposes of Taxation
Pursuant to this Clause, Congress can only impose taxes for three purposes. First, to “pay the debts…of the United States.” This provision was inserted, primarily, to give the federal government the ability to extinguish the existing debts of the United States and was not intended to grant Congress the discretionary power to dream-up ways to incur new debts. Second, to “provide for the common Defense…of the United States.” This provision enumerates the primary purpose of the federal government and grants Congress the power to raise the needed revenue. Third, to “provide…for the general Welfare of the United States.” Since most federal spending falls under the third clause, which is commonly known as the General Welfare Clause, it will be the focus of this article.
Definitions of “General” and “Welfare”
In order to accurately examine the general welfare provision, it is necessary to establish the meaning of the words general and welfare.
“General. 1: involving or applicable to the whole. 2: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind or group.”
“Welfare. 1: the state of doing well, esp. in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity.”
The word welfare is derived from the words “well” and “fare” and means a “state of faring well” or “well being.” When the Framers used the word welfare in the Constitution they were using it in this context. They were not referring to government give-a-way programs for the poor, disabled, disadvantaged, etc. These programs were virtually unknown to the Framers and would have been classified, in the language of the day, as a form of poor relief.
From the above, the common definition of the general welfare phrase, as used by the Framers in the taxing clause is: “the whole group’s well being.”
Since the general welfare phrase is annexed to the words “United States,” the whole group being referenced is a group of States called the “United States of America.” Thus, this Clause grants Congress the power: “[t]o lay and collect taxes to provide for the well being of the States in their united or collectively capacity.”
Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist Essay No. 83:
“The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer.” [Emphasis not added]
The Original Controversy
Following the close of the Federal (Constitutional) Convention of 1787, a controversy arose over the meaning and scope of the general welfare phrase. The Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification of the proposed constitution, were vehemently opposed to this provision because they believed it was an abstract term and Congress alone would determine its scope and meaning. They also asserted this provision amounted to an unlimited grant of legislative power.
The Federalists asserted that the Anti-Federalists had misconstrued the construction of this provision. James Madison, who is recognized by some as the father of the Constitution, argued that the general welfare phrase was a qualifying term, not an independent grant of power. He claimed the general welfare provision could not be construed as an unlimited grant of legislative power because it was followed by an enumeration of particular powers. Since the federal government was a government of limited powers, Madison asserted the power to tax and spend was confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to Congress by the Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court
Following his election in 1932 and the implementation of his so-called New Deal policies, much of President Franklin Roosevelt’s legislation was challenged as unconstitutional. A majority on the Court, who had been appointed by Republicans, began declaring cornerstones of the New Deal unconstitutional in 5-4 decisions. This infuriated Roosevelt and he threaten to pack the Court with justices who would be more sympathetic to his New Deal legislation.
In 1936, in the case of U.S. v. Butler, the scope of the General Welfare Clause indirectly reached the United States Supreme Court in a challenge to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Even though the Court again ruled against the New Deal in a 5-4 decision, it laid the foundation for Congress to exercise additional taxing and spending power through the General Welfare Clause.
A little over a year after the Butler decision, the Supreme Court decided a case that dealt specifically with the General Welfare Clause. This case involved a challenge to various provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935. Since there was no constitutional authority for this type of scheme, the federal government had to find a way to bring it under the umbrella of a clause in the Constitution. That provision was the General Welfare Clause. Citing the Butler case as precedent, the Court, in Helvering v. Davis, sustained the constitutionality of the Social Security Act in a questionable 5-4 decision:
“Congress may spend money to aid in the ‘general welfare.’ There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision… The conception of the spending power advocated by (Alexander) Hamilton and strongly reinforced by (Supreme Court Justice Joseph) Story, has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents (supporters).” [Bracketed words added for clarification]
Even though the Court’s ruling, in the author’s opinion, was erroneous and can be refuted in whole or in part, this analysis will focus on the views expressed by Hamilton and Story because their interpretations, if they were being followed, would render the majority of all federal spending programs, including earmarks and pork-barrel spending, unconstitutional.
NOTE: The opening clause of the Social Security Act states it is: “An Act to provide for the General Welfare.”
Hamilton’s Broad Interpretation
In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton asserted the general welfare provision conferred a power separate and distinct from the specific grants of legislative power contained in the Constitution. He also claimed the specific grants of legislative power did not qualify or limit the meaning of the general welfare phrase. Therefore, Congress, according to Hamilton, had an independent and unspecified power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare.
Even though Hamilton asserted the appropriation of money for the general welfare is totally within the discretion of Congress, he cautioned there are several limitations on their power.
First, Congress cannot use this provision as a pretext to legislate for the general welfare generally. It can only tax and spend for the general welfare of the United States.
Second, the appropriation must be applied to the whole (general) and cannot be local or particular.
“That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”
Third, Congress cannot use the power of appropriation to do things “not authorized in the Constitution.”
“No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.”
When the States adopted the Constitution they agreed to unite specially – not generally. As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Essay No. 32, the Constitution would only establish a “partial union” between the States. A limited union equals limited powers. In other words, the States are only united within the scope of the limited powers delegated to the federal government. Thus, this provision cannot be construed to grant Congress the power to tax and spend to do things “not authorized in the Constitution” because the States are not united outside of the delegated powers and the general welfare provision is restricted to the States in their united capacity.
Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution
Joseph Story was a Justice on the United States Supreme Court from 1811-1845. In his 1833 commentaries on the Constitution, which the Court adopted in 1937, Story supported Hamilton’s assertions concerning the general welfare provision.
Story agreed with Hamilton that the general welfare provision was a component of the taxing power and not a grant of legislative power:
“The power to lay taxes is a power exclusively given to raise revenue, and it can constitutionally be applied to no other purposes. The application for other purposes is an abuse of the power; and, in fact, however it may be in form disguised, it is a premeditated usurpation of authority.”
He also supported Hamilton’s assertion that appropriations must be general:
“A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them. If the defence proposed by a tax be not the common defence of the United States, if the welfare be not general, but special, or local, as contradistinguished from national, it is not within the scope of the constitution.”
Things not Authorized in the Constitution
If Congress cannot use the power of appropriation to do things “not authorised in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication,” then where would one look to find a basic blueprint so this rule can be followed?
Ironically, that would be a Federalist Essay written by James Madison. In Essay No. 45, he distinguished the external powers granted to the federal government from the domestic powers reserved to the States:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part; be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger, those of the State governments in times of peace and security.”
As stated by Madison, the powers of the federal government pertain, for the most part, to external or foreign affairs and do not extend to the life, liberty or property of the people of the several States. This constitutional principle, standing alone, disproves any assertion that Congress was granted broad authority under the General Welfare Clause. It also negates any claim that Congress was granted the authority to establish and fund domestic social programs under the guise of the general welfare. Thus, any appropriation to fund these programs is unconstitutional irrespective of whether it meets the general (apply to the whole) test.
In his analysis, Justice Story stated the federal government had not been granted the authority to meddle with the “systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states.” Yet, Congress is using the general welfare provision to encroach in all of these areas despite the fact that it does not have the constitutional authority to do so under any provision of the Constitution.
Since the federal government was not granted any general authority over social or domestic issues within the several States, Congress is unconstitutionally taxing the American people “to do things not authorised in the constitution.”
Justice Story also addressed the appropriation of money for foreign purposes:
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mohammedanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles.”
Despite this limitation, Congress is using the general welfare provision as its constitutional authority for appropriating billions of dollars for foreign aid programs like those mentioned by Story. Congressional abuse has become so pervasive that Congress taxes the American people to build homes and fund birth control programs in foreign countries. As stated by Story, this type of spending is “wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles.”
NOTE: The Founders would have categorized Social Security as a form of poor relief. Thus, as stated by Story, the federal government never had the constitutional authority to tax and spend to establish this program in the first place. Yet, the Supreme Court adopted Story’s interpretation of the general welfare provision and then used it to declare the Social Security Act constitutional.
Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Defined
After doing an online search to find some easy to understand definitions, I settled on the ones found on Wikipedia because they are accurate and touch on the constitutional rules placed on Congress’ power to tax and spend under the general welfare provision.
EARMARK: “a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects…Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.”
PORK BARREL SPENDING: “government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative’s district…benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers.”
The reader will note the use of the words local and particular in defining the scope of these terms. Since congressional spending for the general welfare cannot be local or particular, these appropriations are, in the words of Justice Story, “not within the scope of the constitution.”
Here is an easy to understand example of how this type of spending works and why it is unconstitutional. At the present time, Congress imposes a general gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon throughout the United States. When Congress writes a spending bill and a powerful member of Congress wants to buy some votes from the folks back home, he places an earmark in the legislation to have a 3 million dollar bicycle trail built in his home State or congressional district. The money for the project is appropriated from the general fund of the United States where the gasoline taxes were deposited with other taxes of a general nature. Thus, taxes from the general fund were used to finance a local or particular project within an individual State. This is unconstitutional. The project was not for the welfare of the States in their united capacity. This is unconstitutional. Since building bicycle trails in the States is “not authorised in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication,” the appropriation failed this test and is unconstitutional.
In other words, Congress cannot impose a general tax throughout the United States, put the money in the general fund of the United States, appropriate money from the general fund of the United States, and then spend the money for a local or particular project.
Summary of the Rules for Taxing and Spending
Every tax and appropriation that is not to pay the debts or provide for the common defense of the United States is constitutionally governed by the following rules.
1-The tax and appropriation must be for something authorized in the Constitution. If this rule is met, then the second rule comes into play.
2-The appropriation must be general, i.e., apply to the States in their united or collective capacity. Congress cannot tax and appropriate money for local or particular projects.
Every dollar contained in every spending bill passed by Congress for the “general Welfare of the United States” must meet both of these requirements to be constitutional. When these rules are applied, we find the majority of all federal taxes being imposed by Congress either fund programs and projects not authorized in the Constitution or are for local or particular projects. Thus, the majority of all federal spending, outside of the general operating expenses of the federal government, is unconstitutional because these two rules are either ignored or violated by Congress.
Conclusion
When federal taxation and spending is placed under a constitutional microscope for examination, we find the document has been infected by a wealth-eating virus called “members of Congress.” These individuals, who took an oath to support the Constitution prior to taking office, have disregarded the interpretations and limitations expressed above and unconstitutionally adopted a new interpretation of the general welfare provision. Their interpretation deletes words, disregards words, changes the meaning of the words “general” and “welfare,” and is absent of any of the limitations expressed by the Founders. In short, members of Congress claim they have the unlimited power to tax, spend, and legislate, as long as they cite the general welfare as the constitutional authority for the legislation.
And to add insult to injury, congressional appointees in the federal judiciary have constructed an obstacle course that makes it almost impossible for the American people to use the legal system to stop Congress from taxing them to fund programs not authorized in the Constitution.
Now that we know the Congress of the United States has been violating the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution for decades and pushing the nation to the brink of economic ruin, the question is: what are we going to do about it? Our children and grand children are waiting for our decision.
Bob Greenslade [send him email] is a regular participant in Tenth Amendment Center comments and has been writing for http://www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
It’s a little longer than I’m used to reading, but getting some really good info here. Thanks for the article, Bob!
While I generally shy away from anything that uses federalist arguments as a primary resource, I found this to be a solid article – it shows that even the biggest of big government supporters in the founding days would be opposed to the monstrosity that the federal government has become today.
I appreciate the thoughts in the article; however, I respectfully disagree. I realize that the argument expressed in the article has a logical flow to it – at least as logical as any other attempt at Constitutional construction.
That said, I will refer to the examples in the article to make my argument that even bicycle trails and foreign birth control programs can be for the “general Welfare.”
First, as to bicycle trails, any American who wants to go ride a bicycle trail in the Grand Canyon can do so. The fact that it is in a particular location does not mean it is NOT for the “general Welfare.” To make these such expenditures even more “general,” we can have MANY such projects scattered all throughout the U.S. That way, everyone “generally” gets a little welfare.
As to foreign birth control programs, one might say that our charity to foreign nations is for our “general Welfare” because it builds alliances.
Therefore, while I respect the argument made in the article, it seems obvious that “big government” proponents can easily argue that the things on which money is spent is for the “general Welfare.” So, all you get is an argument back and forth, and the same-old, worn-out, tired pork-barrel politics.
I think the early comment in the article makes more sense and is a more astute construction. “general Welfare” is DESCRIPTIVE of the enumerated powers that follow. If this was not the case, then why didn’t the framers just stop at the “general Welfare” phrase? If “general Welfare” had any independent significance at all, it would obviously render every single one of the enumerated powers as mere SURPLUSAGE.
Why would anyone have to list powers to declare war, coin money, regulate trade among the states, make bankruptcy laws, and so forth? If Article I, Section 8, stated “Congress can lay taxes and make appropriations for the general Welfare,” that would have been enough, by itself. I doubt anyone has argued that the specifically-enumerated powers are NOT for the “general Welfare” and therefore, had to be added.
So, in my opinion, if “general Welfare” was something different than the enumerated powers, then, by definition, the enumerated powers are not for the “general Welfare.” If “general Welfare” includes the enumerated powers, then there was no need to make a long list of enumerated powers. The list would add NOTHING to the powers already granted under the “general Welfare” phrase.
Therefore, there are only two other options I see left. One is that you could imply that the introductory sentence in Article I, Section 8 has the phrase or meaning, “including but not limited to,” in it. That way, it could be construed that “Congress shall have the power to collect taxes and make appropriations for the gneral Welfare, including but not limited to…. [enumerated powers].” This is what I think is the implicit assumption being made in the article above.
Though this form of grammar is often used, strict constructionists tend to want to avoid assuming “including but not limited to” in such a document because it tends to make specific provisions become unnecessary surplusage with no independent legal significance. In other words, even though people often use the phrase, “including but not limited to,” what they are really saying is all of the listed things that follow are a SUBSET of the general object that precedes them. They really are not necessary to list, but they are listed out of caution to be sure the general object preceding them is not construed in such a way as to preclude the list that follows. It is difficult to argue against this point.
The only other construction I see is that “general Welfare” was only a phrase that was descriptive of the powers that followed. It is basically an adjective and not an object. It has no legal significance of its own. Why I find this argument more convincing is because: (1) honestly, I have a bias in my goal as to what I’d like to see in government, and (2) I have doubts that the people would have ratified the Constitution had it given Congress the power to tax and spend for anything it thought was in the “general Welfare.”
That construction seems to me to be far too broad and sweeping, and I have reluctance to think the people were ready to cede that much authority to a federal government just a handful of years after a bloody war was fought against another central government that they thought was too abusive and powerful.
one thing’s for sure, it was Hamilton who first advocated a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause – and it was done so he could make his case for corporate welfare. Check out his 1791 “Report on Manufactures.”
Following the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the intent and scope of the general welfare phrase remained part of the political debate. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton in January of 1792, James Madison wrote:
“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.”
During a congressional debate on February 7, 1792, Madison warned:
“[I]f Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…”
Sound familiar?
As Michael stated above, Hamilton’s version went way beyond what his Federalist friends had crafted in the Convention. At least Madison had the character to attack Hamilton’s expansion of power.
The most succinct and accurate interpretation of the general welfare provision, in my opinion, was the one espoused by Thomas Jefferson in 1792:
“I suppose its meaning to be that Congress may collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare, in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare.”
Under this interpretation, Congress would have virtually unlimited power to tax and appropriate “money in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare.” Not only would this interpretation be in total harmony with the structure of the Constitution, but it would also conform to the principles of limited government and enumerated powers. It would leave the federal government with the means necessary to fund every exigency requiring money where the Constitution empowers Congress to act for the general welfare of the United States.
Bob Greenslade: Those were good quotes you posted. The fact that the tension was recognized virtually from the outset shows that, at the outset, this was NOT a well-settled question. What it seems to indicate to me is that the people plundered into ratification without first demanding that the issue be settled. How improvident!
I wonder how long it will be before this cash for clunkers program, turns into a cash for geezers program? Now that my want’s outweigh those rights of others.
During a congressional debate in 1828, William Drayton of South Carolina made the following statement:
“If Congress can determine what constitutes the General Welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be offered by money? How few objects are there which money cannot accomplish? …What are the consequences? Congress can pass no law for the general advancement of religion, of learning, and of charity, wherever these laws are so framed as that they cannot be executed through the instrumentality of money, but Congress may pass laws for the erection and endowment of churches, colleges, and hospitals, because they could be carried into execution by the appropriation of money. Can it be conceived that the great and wise men who devised our Constitution…should have failed so egregiously…as to grant a power which rendered restrictions upon power practically unavailing?”
Drayton foresaw the same potential for abuse Madison expressed years earlier. It should be noted that Madison never wavered from his original interpretation of the general welfare provision. In December of 1831, five years before his death he wrote:
“Beginning with the great question growing out of the terms ‘common defence and general welfare,’ my early opinion expressed in The Federalist, limiting the phrase to the specified powers, has been adhered to on every occasion which has called for a test of it.”
Jeff I think it was well settled in the minds of those who wrote the Constitution. Remember Hamilton left the Convention after the proponents of a national government lost the debate and the word “national” was removed from the resolutions and replaced with the word “federal.”
We should not lose sight of the fact that the general welfare phrase, as it appears in the Constitution, can be traced to the Articles of Confederation. The third article of the Confederation stated:
“The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare…”
This article, which was in the nature of a preamble or introductory clause rather than a grant of power, stated that one of the objects of the union between the several States was their general welfare. From the above definitions, the general welfare phrase, as it was used in the Articles of Confederation, meant “the common or general well being of the States.”
The general welfare phrase also appeared in the eighth article:
“All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury…”
This provision granted “the united states, in congress assembled,” the power to pay various expenses out of a common treasury.
Since the general welfare phrase was extracted from the Articles and used exactly the same way in both documents, I doubt if there was any uncertainty as to the true meaning of these words at the time the Constitution was adopted.
Bob, maybe I misunderstood you, but in any event, if you are now saying there was no question as to what it meant during ratification, I am not so sure about that.
You said,
Following the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the intent and scope of the general welfare phrase REMAINED part of the political debate. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton in January of 1792, James Madison wrote:
“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.”
During a congressional debate on February 7, 1792, Madison WARNED:
“[I]f Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…”
I used all CAPS to emphasize the words you used. Now, that you are asserting you think it was all settled in 1788, I ask why the issue sprung so quickly that by at least as early as Jabuary 1792, this issue was being discussed.
I really don’t know the answer and don’t want to presume I know the history in that short episode of time, but I’d venture to say that with all the players involved in ratification, and the markedly different philosophies that were clearly prevalent just after, that this issue WAS an issue at the time of ratification. I have doubts that the federalists developed their philosophy of national government as a RESULT of ratification. I think it was their philosophy all along, and there must have clearly been disparate understandings at the time of ratification. SOMEBODY must have raised this issue before ratification.
Jeff- in his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Hamilton put forth his expanded version. He was in a position of power as Washington’s Treasury Secretary from 1789-1795 so he had the ability to influence policy and initiate debate.
In 1792, Madison was responding to Hamilton’s new expanded version. That is why he issued the warning you referenced. Even though the all powerful central government guys lost the debate in the Convention, they never gave up. Every chance they got they pushed for expanded interpretations. I find it interesting that Madison, who endorsed the Virginia Plan in the Convention, would attack Hamilton for advancing an expanded interpretation if Hamilton’s version was the correct one.
I also find Hamilton’s broad interpretation in direct conflict with his earlier writings in The Federalist. Hamilton’s statement from No. 83, concerning the legislative powers granted to Congress, tends to support Madison’s interpretation of the “general welfare” clause:
“The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars 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.”
Hamilton’s interpretation of the general welfare provision was so radical that Thomas Jefferson told President Washington that many were questioning whether “we live under a limited or unlimited government.”
Looks like we are still asking that question today.