Health Care and the Constitution

 Dear Jgecik -

Thanks for this very intelligent question.  I think to answer it adequately, I need to expand its scope a little bit.  There are 2 parts where "general Welfare" is mentioned in the Constitution  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The Preamble which states:  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 which you referenced.   “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.”

Okay, for the Preambles "promote the general Welfare" first - 

1) Nothing could be more natural than to state a generality and then explain it later.  If the phrasing were so open - that the gov't could do WHATEVER it wanted if "it's for the general welfare" then why do we need the rest of the document.  The founders obviously meant to ENUMERATE (a fancy word for LIST) the powers of Congress.  Even the USSR Constitution gives praise to the general Welfare, but then it specifically states health care is a right (which it's not per http://towneforcongress.com/economy/health-care-platform-announcement)

2) The meaning of "promote" is VERY different from "provide"  (of course Art 1 Sec 8 DOES in fact state "provide")  The government is there to PROMOTE prosperity, not PROVIDE prosperity to each citizen.  which leads to #3

3) In today's world, we define/associate welfare as "taking (stealing, really) from the rich and giving to the poor."   However, in the times of the founders, general welfare pretty much just meant the overall wellness of the society, and since many folks had a very strong affection for their property, it was blatantly obvious the government was not supposed to steal from one to give to the other.

 Now for Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 1:   Point 1 from above still applies, but not as strongly.  Point 2 doesn't apply, but point 3 does.

4) Note the term is "general Welfare", not "individual Welfare".  Congress is NOT allowed (well, they do, but let's pretend we are a Republic for a moment) to favor special groups or individuals.  To suggest otherwise is nonsense, as how does stealing from Paul to pay Peter - which is basically what gov't run health care IS - increase the general Welfare.

5) There was a fair amount of controversy over this clause at the time the Constitution was under ratification (I think it would have been best to stick with the wording in the preamble, "provide for the common defense, PROMOTE the general Welfare", so by reading them one can understand the public sentiment and thoughts at the time.  The Federalist Papers from Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were published anonymously to address concerns from the public.  This is taken from #41   http://www.scribd.com/doc/18612628/The-Federalist-Papers

"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!"

A little long, sorry, but note Madison states it is "such a misconstruction." and "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?"  If Madison were alive today, in today's english he would be screaming, "WHY THE HELL WOULD WE LIST EVERYTHING BELOW IF SAYING "GENERAL WELFARE" MEANS CONGRESS CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS!!!"

Lastly, one could read Supreme Court rulings from 1935 and prior and you will understand that Madison's elaboration was what was carried out - to do otherwise is really socialistic madness once it really gets rolling - like it is today - plus it will ALWAYS unravel economically-speaking and morally-speaking.

One should also note in the Constitution where they said "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,)" that they never meant to meet a lot.  Our formula was for a very limited central government, stronger states, and the strongest - local area rule.

And I would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids who pay attention to history!

Based on original intent, the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8 wouldn't be much more than an introduction to the enumerated powers listed immeidately after, as if to say "Here's what we're gonna do: common defense, welfare, etc, and here's EXACTLY how we're gonna do it and no other way."  At least, that's what I got from reading the Constitution and from your response, Mr. Towne.

Jake makes a great reference to The Federalost Papers No. 41, and 45. Although there is no conferrence to a valid explanation as to the "general welfare." The enumeration of particulars I would agree provides some guide that there is no blank check on Congressional powers.

Sorry, I misspelled "Federalist."