General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution (Madison)
In the first of three essays that deal with the powers conferred by the Constitution to Congress in Article I, Section 8 and other federal powers (Article IV, Sections 3 and 4), Madison starts by noting that the Constitution should be looked at both in regards to the relationship between the federal government and the states (federalism), and the distribution of power among the branches (separation of powers). Madison responds to critics of the Constitution who object specifically to the powers of the federal government. These critics assert that the full list of powers would create the risk (to them, almost certain) of the federal government abridging the powers of the states and the liberty of the people. Madison responds by noting that no form of government could ever guarantee that power would never be abused. He asserts essentially that it is wrong to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Madison asserts that the powers of the federal government under the Constitution are not only necessary but also properly limited.
Madison divides the powers of the federal government into a number of categories (1. National defense, 2. Foreign policy, 3. Harmony between states, 4. Miscellaneous objects of general utility, 5. Restraining the states, 6. Giving due efficacy to these powers). Madison then proceeds to spend the rest of this essay exploring the category of national defense. These powers (creating and providing for an army/navy, calling up the militia, and the power to tax and borrow money) were among the most objected parts to the Constitution and Anti-Federalists focused on these provisions as for reasons why the Constitution should not be adopted.
Madison spends a significant portion of the rest of the essay arguing that a national government must have the absolute right to the national defense. He argues that many of the limitations the Anti-Federalists proposed, such as a ban against standing armies or limiting the timing of appropriation of funds to the military as either short-sighted (ban on standing armies) or reflecting a limitation found in the English Constitution that wasn’t actually a true limitation (one year military appropriations).
What is interesting is that Madison is clearly writing to a specific audience. The essay was addressed to the citizens of New York. New York was a long holdout to the Constitution. Madison spends a lot of time arguing for why a navy might be necessary. He reminds New York that its coastline was so long that in event of military action, it was especially vulnerable to attack. New Yorkers would remember how quickly and with little effort, the British landed in Manhattan during the Revolutionary War. His reminding them of this fear is meant to show the very true chance that only a navy can protect them.
The last of this essay explores an argument raised by Anti-Federalists. They argue that the power of taxation should be limited only to imports. While Madison argues that he understands why Anti-Federalists feel this way, he asserts that the Constitution was built to last and that they did not want to restrain future generations if importation levies were not enough to provide for the common defense.
Comment by Brandon White:
ReplyDeleteTwo points here. One, Madison cleverly places taxation within the category of national defense in order to frame the power in a way that would make it easier to defend. Two, Madison’s argument relating to limiting future generations is especially poignant as the Supreme Court (on the 26th of this month) takes up the mandatory mandate found within the Affordable Care Act.
Would Madison support the practice of the federal government redistributing funds to areas of education, welfare, or healthcare? Does the General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8, grant such power to the government? It appears the Anti-federalists were correct to worry about the federal government’s procurement of power over traditional state functions through the General Welfare Clause. Perhaps Madison himself would disapprove of some legislative measures passed in reference to the general welfare. In the essay, Madison asserts, “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity.” On the one hand, Madison’s argument may be interpreted as restricting both the taxing and spending powers of Congress to those enumerated powers that follow Clause 1 of Section 8. On the other hand, his argument may read as applying, not to the spending power, but to the taxation power of Congress. The ability of the federal government to spend on matters that promote the general welfare is essential to effective government and, as such, ought to be viewed as an inherent power of Congress. Loosely restricted spending powers does not jeopardize states' rights or endanger individual liberties, as the government spending power is limited to its ability to tax. And the taxation power, as I see it, is restricted to those enumerated powers under Section 8. Whether spending on general welfare constitutes education, healthcare, or welfare through the Commerce Clause is debatable but not definitive.
ReplyDelete