Clarifying the Common Good since 1791

[unixronin]

Thomas Jefferson, in an opinion written in 1791, explained that the Congress does NOT possess an unrestricted power to do whatever it feels like "for the common good", but rather possesses only the power of taxation to provide for the common good, pointing out that the presumption of an unlimited power to do whatever it opines to be the common good would make the entire discussion of enumerated powers completely moot and pointless, turning the Constitution into a blank check for Congress to do whatever it pleases:

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.  To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.  It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them.  It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

— Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

It is of course only natural that Congress itself should prefer the rationally and legally insupportable blank-check interpretation, but Jefferson's explanation clearly points out the absurdity of this position.  It would be as though the last line of the Constitution were "Ha ha, only kidding, ignore everything we said above, Congress can do whatever it feels like."

Comments

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

A lot of people are offended by the idea that the Constitution was intended to limit government, not facilitate it.

[lwj2.livejournal.com]

That would be due to mistaking a bunch of radicals for a bunch of liberals.

They'd just recently gotten rid of one centralized government, why anyone would think that they'd want to replace it with another centralized government escapes me.

Edited to add: This was a group of men who'd just won a revolution not that long before. People constantly go on about our "patriotic Founders" — failing to realize the Founders were a group of men desperate enough to commit High Treason and lucky enough to succede.

I quote a Brit classmate's response to "What do you British think of George Washington?" [from, I note, a substitute teacher who was both a bigot and a moron]:

"Colonel Washington? The well-known traitor to Crown and Country?" delivered in a deliberate public-school drawl.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That would be due to mistaking a bunch of radicals for a bunch of liberals.

They'd just recently gotten rid of one centralized government, why anyone would think that they'd want to replace it with another centralized government escapes me.

The power of rationalization springs eternal, particularly among those who lack both any discernable critical-thinking skills and any discernable desire to acquire same.

[genuine-snark.livejournal.com]

Yeah, for some reason I thought this was James Madison, but was familiar with the piece.

I'm really conflicted. Here's why:

A) As an idealist, I believe fully that the Constitution was, in fact, meant to limit government in the way most constitutionalists say. I also think that would have been an excellent--if fragile--idea.

B) As a realist, I realize we not only crossed that line a long time ago, but we crossed it in such a way that there's simply no going back by any reasonable means. We have, in fact, made the populace dependent on the government in much the way that Jefferson was likely afraid of.

C) As a pragmatist, I tend to feel that the best way to go from there is to take the situation we have and try to figure out how that can be attainably made better.

The situation we have is essentially a socialist-leaning government, albeit one often paralyzed by arguments over whether it should be a socialist-leaning government. History tells me that world governments get heavier in steps and lighter in bursts, and I don't want a burst. Moreover, we're getting the stick already, and I'd like at least a little bit of carrot.

And that leads me to solutions like socialized health care (though the debate as to whether -this- solution makes things better is another whole treatise; I suspect compromise has severely damaged it in that regard).

All said, I would be more comfortable if this was provided at the state level instead, and federal funds were simply collected to subsidize the states. I think that would actually be constitutional, and then I wouldn't need to be conflicted.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

All said, I would be more comfortable if this was provided at the state level instead, and federal funds were simply collected to subsidize the states.

I tend to think that the Federal government collecting funds in order to distribute most of it back to the states is simply a way to waste money that should have stayed in the states in the first place. The Federal government should not be in the business of collecting money for state programs. The states can collect their own money with less waste, and they won't be tempted to spend it on things the states didn't actually want in the first place.