2010 and Beyond

I'm still pessimistic about the prospects for what can actually be accomplished in the next few elections vis-à-vis rolling back the unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's power.

In order to elect leaders with the understanding and willingness to affect this kind of reform, you must first convince the electorate of the worthiness of your cause. While many people are starting to wake up, far too many Americans remain transfixed by the promise of hopenchange, thanks in part to the collectivist mush crammed into their skulls by public schools and the media. No amount of reasoned discourse is likely to relieve them of this condition, as rational arguments tend to be ineffective when employed against irrational minds.

We're talking about generational change here, and the current set of clowns in Washington is simply the latest spiral in a transformational process we've been "progressing" through for many decades. No generation alive today is immune. Try having a discussion with a retiree about the unconstitutional and fundamentally unsustainable nature of Social Security and Medicare. Though they might agree with you in principle, they'll tell you that the government is "obligated" to provide them with these "entitlements," and that they'll be damned if they let anyone tell them otherwise. I need not relate to you the state of political thought on our college campuses. Today's Marxist sociology majors are tomorrow's social justice agitators, frothing at their mouths for the chance to redistribute the earnings of the few remaining productive members of society. This utter dependency on the federal government by individual citizens for the satisfaction of their myriad "needs" has been nurtured by folks who are ideologically-driven to alter the nature of the relationship between the People and their government, and it has all but extinguished the uniquely American spirit of rugged individualism.

I fear that things will have to get worse -- much, much worse -- before they can get better. I'm becoming ever more convinced that the only scenario which can turn this mess around is an economic disaster truly on the scale of (or even exceeding) the Great Depression. The follies of Keynesian mixed-market European-style (read: well-intentioned soft socialism) central planning will be exposed to the voters and taxpayers of the United States, despite the fact that capitalism will most assuredly be blamed by the media and intelligentsia all the way down. A jarring, forced return back to basics (think fruit cellars and victory gardens) might prove to be what it takes to convince the public of the error of their ways, compelling them to vote-in leaders who will resurrect the ideals of limited government and free-market economics. (Though Detroit is, admittedly, a counter-indicator for this theory, as 50 years of a Democrat monopoly on local politics has helped shape Motown into the shining beacon of Progressivism that it is today, and the voting patterns of its citizenry are unlikely to change any time soon.)

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective and/or investment portfolio), we're hurtling towards such a watershed event with reckless abandon, and the policies of those currently in power may just make this endgame unavoidable. I hope that, in the end, America can learn from her mistakes.

About the General Welfare Clause

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.

Many people point to the general welfare clause as constitutional authority for myriad federal programs designed to advance "the greater good." But does this clause really give Congress a blank check to assume any powers it deems fit to "promote the general Welfare?" It is important to consider what the Founding Fathers themselves wrote regarding this issue:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

- James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, 1792

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1798

With respect to the two 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, Letter to James Robertson, 1831

Historically, the (pre-New Deal) Supreme Court has also been instructive on the matter at hand:

The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress.

- Joseph Story (former SCOTUS justice), Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

It seems the Framers did not intend to empower Congress to act in whatever fashion it deems necessary for "promote the general Welfare."