Absolutely I'm sure - and for a number of reasons, not the least of which include Madison's strenuous argument for the retention of that particular verbiage in the Constitution - an argument which (and I'm sure this will pique your interest)
I wish he had lost.
I note you rely on Madison in the Federalist Papers for this. What about one of the other founding fathers, Hamilton who had this to say about the phrase "general welfare" (does anyone but Madison get a say here?)
Absolutely they do.
So seems that some folks other than myself and a few crazed libruls had a somewhat more expansive view of the potential of this phrase.
You can relax Thaum. No one has denied, let alone asserted there isn't an
expansive view of the meaning in the "general welfare" phrase. Goodness, one needs but look around us today and see in the utter ruination of our economy and the insanely gargantuan size of our federal government and those arguing incessantly for it to
expand even further that there is an
expansive view of the meaning of that phrase.
And no one, except [true to form] you, has uttered the phrase "crazed libruls," though I daresay that when one considers the liberal devotion and commitment to the
expansive view of the meaning of that phrase that some might think that characterization apt. But that wouldn't include me, and never has included me, and consequently never have I even uttered that phrase. FWIW, my estimation of liberal ideology travels an entirely different direction than that of liberalism being mere craziness.
So, since it seems your habit not to read someone's entire post but rather to pick and choose from context those phrases which suit you, or to concoct arguments never uttered so yours have the greater weight, let's return to what I posted and see if we can't make some semblance of sense of it.
Please note that I quoted the last four paragraphs of Madison's essay but highlighted only one sentence of the third. When one reads all four paragraphs, one quickly realizes the context for what I highlighted - namely
"the objection" to which those four paragraphs are specifically directed. That objection would be this:
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.
It ought to be clear from that first paragraph of what I quoted that there are "other views" of the meaning of that phrase (common defense and general welfare), as indeed there were/are - otherwise we would not have those 4 paragraphs at all.
In fact, I included the first of those 4 paragraphs to give context, both historical and contemporary, for Madison's view (and mine, and others then and now).
To that "objection" then, which, in case you didn't read it above, is this:
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.
This objection addresses then the
expansive view.
Some were arguing AGAINST that language, arguing its inclusion in the general form would give a nefariously unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged necessary for the common defense or general welfare.
Some were arguing FOR that language, Madison obviously, and Hamilton as you appropriately noted.
I would contend, Thaum, that while Madison and Hamilton were in support of the general language - they were so for two completely different reasons.
Madison argued for its retention, believing naively that retaining it would have no unintended consequences, that any rational person reading it would understand the construct of particulars following a general giving precise definition to the general.
Hamilton agreed with its inclusion, believing as you noted (though he wasn't certain - no doubt having never read Federalist #41)
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
Indeed, here is the very argument precipitating the authors of "the objection" to object as strenuously as they did. Hamilton, in his Report on Manufactures in 1791 conveniently puts it into writing (a report, btw to which both Madison and Jefferson strenuously objected).
Now again, as I noted above, I wish Madison had lost his argument to those so strenuously objecting to that particular phraseology; for if he had, we might not be in the gargantuan economic and governmental mess we're in today, having allowed the
expansive view to reap the destruction it has.
