Steny Hoyer claims the “general welfare” clause in the constitution grants congress the broad authority to mandate healthcare coverage

If the founders could have looked into the future while they were writing and debating the constitution I believe that there is one phrase, which appears twice in the constitution, that they would have eliminated, or probably more accurately, modified– the “general welfare” clause.

Over the years the “general welfare” clause has been misconstrued in various ways to implement “social welfare” programs, this was not the intent of the “general welfare” clause. The “general welfare” clause was tied directly into the “national defense” clause.

In Federalist 41 Hamilton argued that the “general welfare” clause could not be used to expand the federal government beyond what was intended.

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…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?…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

He explains that the “general welfare” clause is a general term immediately followed by strict guidelines of federal powers. Here are the only powers granted to the federal government under national defense and general welfare:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The general statement of “national defense and general welfare” was clearly defined right after the statement appears. Congress was only given 17 clearly defined powers.

But if Hamilton’s explanation is not enough to convince you I will provide a statement from Madison on the “general welfare” clause.

With respect to the words general welfare… To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators

There is no more evidence that needs to be submitted to prove the argument that the “general welfare” clause was not meant to provide “social welfare.” The general welfare clause was a vague statement immediately followed by rules that should be followed to ensure the general welfare.

Almost since the adoption of the constitution judges have looked outside the constitution in attempting to interpret the constitution, some have even used the laws of foreign nations to interpret the constitution as they see fit. If one is to look outside the constitution to interpret what the founders intended than it would seem to me that we should look at the debates and the opinions that the Federalists had while fighting to ratify the constitution. That is what I have done here and I have proven that the founders did no have the intent to provide “social welfare” to citizens of the United States.

But that is exactly what has happened over the years and now House Majority leader Steny Hoyer is claiming that the “general welfare” clause grants congress the authority to force all Americans to buy healthcare insurance whether they want to or not. When he was asked where in the constitution he and congress found the authority to force Americans to purchase insurance he invoked the “general welfare” clause.

Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end,” Hoyer said. “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility

Certainly this is a perversion of the “general welfare” clause as argued by both Hamilton and Madison. When asked if the government could force people to buy other products he claimed that eventually the Supreme Court would have to find a limit to government power.

I’m sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit,

He has more faith in the Supreme Court than I do. Once the precedent is set that the government can force a person to buy anything they are not going to find a limit to what the government can force an individual to buy. Steny Hoyer claims that eventually the “due process” clause in the constitution will trump the “general welfare” clause in the eyes of the Supreme Court.

Steny Hoyer claims that forcing Americans to buy healthcare is constitutional because they can buy any healthcare plan from any insurance company that they want to but he forgets that the option not to buy healthcare insurance will be taken off of the table. That means one option is being taken away from the people.

The last time that the government tried to implement national healthcare the Congressional Budget Office even questioned the constitutionality of the proposal.

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government

What has changed?

Steny Hoyer is trying to equate buying healthcare insurance to paying taxes in order to justify his position.

we mandate other things as well, like paying taxes

That is true but the power to levy taxes is actually one of the powers strictly granted to congress in the constitution. On a sidenote, is he admitting that healthcare reform is nothing more than a tax?

Steny Hoyer is desperately trying to find constitutional grounds to stand on for the attempt by the federal government to mandate healthcare insurance but the fact is that he has no constitutional grounds to stand on.

In the end a healthcare mandate will probably be passed and made into law. The question is will the Supreme Court hear arguments about the constitutionality of healthcare mandates? And if they do, will the Supreme Court find the limit that Steny Hoyer claims they will eventually? We better hope so.