NP Rank:
18th Century Definitions: General Welfare
While looking through a copy of Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language" (published in 1755), one can find a number of interesting definitions that have broad-reaching effects on public policy. Here's two that are quite relevant these days:
General:
1. Comprehending many species or individuals; not special.
3. Not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations
5. Public; comprising the whole
Welfare:
1. Happiness; success; prosperity
Clearly, these definitions, Constitutionally-speaking, are far different than what the politicians and pundits tell us. The "general Welfare" clause, as stated in the Tenth Amendment Center's 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution, was actually meant as a limit on power - not an excuse to expand it:
The phrase, “general Welfare,” in Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to enact any laws it claims are in the “general Welfare” of the United States. The phrase sets forth the requirement that all laws passed by Congress in Pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution shall also be in the general Welfare of the United States. This was affirmed by James Madison when he wrote: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. 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.”
Recommendations (24)
-
mudricky
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom -
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United States -
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
Albert Milliron
Columbia, South Carolina, United States


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (9)
at 17:46 on October 8th, 2009
I am an originalist and you have hit the nail on the head. The intent of the framers and how language was used during the time of the writing. Thanks for this little lesson
at 17:51 on October 8th, 2009
Thanks for the feedback politisite - it's definitely appreciated! I think what people miss is most constitutional debates is that to understand meanings, we really need to understand definitions of words used at the time - that's why an 18th century dictionary is essential. And most of the big ones are available online!
at 19:21 on October 8th, 2009
Thank you for bringing up the issue of historical, contextual interpretation, and your example is timely. The Constitution is a living document and subject not only to the founding fathers' definitions, but also to modern interpretations and applications. That's why we have twenty-seven Amendments.
at 19:31 on October 8th, 2009
Thanks for the comment!
It's important that the Constitution can change with the times, but it's not proper to do it by simply redefining the words. It requires amendment to make changes to the rules.
For example, if you and I have a contract together, it holds force under the meaning of the words when we make our agreement. If situations require a change, we need to agree to an addendum, an amendment, or a complete re-write.
Same goes for the government in its use of the Constitution, which are the rules given to it by "we the people"
at 14:21 on October 9th, 2009
The first 10 were not amendments
at 14:20 on October 9th, 2009
I should have said the Bill of rights were written in 1789 and ratified later. The first 10 did not change the constitution in any way. I apologize for not being clear
at 19:34 on October 8th, 2009
You are welcome : )
at 00:20 on October 9th, 2009
Nice piece, Michael. Excellent subject.
at 13:17 on October 9th, 2009
Intresting.