Three Garrett Amendments to House Resolution #5
Q & A
Question #1: Why are neither the “general welfare,” nor the “necessary and proper” clauses sufficient Constitutional citations?
Answer #1: The Founding Fathers made it clear that each of these clauses was connected to the powers defined in Article I. Sec. 8, Paragraphs 2-18:
1. General Welfare Clause
· “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.” –James Madison, in a letter from 1831
· “It may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated.” – Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 33
2. Necessary and Proper Clause
· The words “necessary and proper” [are] “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” –James Wilson, the Pennsylvanian who proposed this clause at the Constitutional Convention
Question #2: What if a Member wanted to introduce legislation that would cut federal spending for an unconstitutional government program?
Answer #2: If a Member wishes to introduce a bill that limits federal power, he or she could cite either the 9th or 10th Amendment.
1. The 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
2. The 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
No comments:
Post a Comment