Congressional Constitution Caucus’ Monthly “Constitution Hour”
Original intent, the Preamble and the appropriations process
Washington,
Jun 22, 2007 -
Mr. Speaker,
We are here today to discuss the importance of the Constitution, especially as it pertains to the topic we in the House have been discussing for the past two weeks: the appropriations process. As Founder and Chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, I have found that many Americans, including some of my fellow Members, do not understand what the Constitution says about the governance of this nation. Therefore, one goal of the Constitution Caucus is to educate Members of Congress about the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning, the Constitution Caucus invited Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to the Capitol to speak about various Constitutional issues. He illustrated how much our system of government changes when legislators ignore or reinterpret the original intent of the Founders. For example, he explained how the seventeenth amendment, which allowed U.S. Senators to be elected by popular vote, rather than by state legislators, has led to increased federal power. The Constitution Caucus will continue to host breakfasts throughout the year to promote our understanding of our preeminent founding document.
Now, let’s look at the very beginning of the Constitution, the Preamble. In its entirety, it is just one sentence long. Let me read it for you: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.”
As you can hear, this passage is intended to sums up what the Founders hoped to accomplish by writing the rest of the Constitution. Yet today, many Members of Congress take one phrase out of the Preamble and use it to justify a broad array of appropriations. They often say a specific project will “promote the general Welfare.” But there are several problems with this interpretation.
First, the founders did not intend for the federal government to “provide” for the general welfare in a literal sense. They didn’t envision a vast bureaucracy that would use citizen’s taxes to finance inefficient government programs. Rather, they hoped that the framework outlined in the Constitution would in and of itself promote the general Welfare. Therefore, we must look at the rest of the Constitution to see what powers are specifically granted to Congress. It is those powers, along with the powers of the executive and judicial branches, which are supposed to promote the general welfare.
Second, the founders did not intend for the federal government to distribute money and services to certain groups of people. The words “general welfare” have been commonly interpreted to mean that the federal government can do almost anything as long as it accomplishes something beneficial. But this definition ignores the Founders real intent. They deliberately used the qualifying word “general” because they meant to limit power, rather than grant it.
Think about it: Would it be fair for the federal government to recognize certain special interest groups or particular pockets of the country while ignoring others? If the Founding Fathers did intend for Congress to create specialized educational, social, and economic programs, there would have been no reason to list the specific powers granted to Congress!
Even James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”
“If Congress is not given such extensive power, then who is?” you may ask. The answer lies in the Tenth Amendment, which states: “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.” Who are we, the 435 Members of the United States House of Representatives, to usurp the authority given to the States and to the people themselves?
Of course, I am not the first person to suggest that the powers of Congress should be limited to those defined by the Constitution. David Crockett, more commonly known as “Davy” Crockett, was Member of this very body from 1827-1831 and 1832-35. I would like to read about an important decision he once made about the appropriations process and his role as a Congressman. The following account is called “Not Yours to Give” and is taken from The Life of Colonel David Crockett, compiled by Edward S. Ellis in 1884.
“One day in the house of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
‘Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in the House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has o power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
‘Every Man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.’
“He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.”
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crocket gave this explanation:
‘Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
‘The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and corning toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
‘I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—‘
‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
‘This was a sockdolager…I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intent to plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest… But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’
‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, For I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complaint hat a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
‘What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give to anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and fro robbing the people on the other.
‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as the please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose….So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it’s power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.’”
As you have just heard from this illustration, Davy Crockett learned an important lesson from a farmer: Congress has limits on its spending power. We must carefully examine each earmark. Our intentions may be praiseworthy, but we cannot ignore our oaths of office. I hope that my fellow Members will consider this advice as we continue considering appropriations bills next week.
I look forward to our next Constitution Hour and invite you to join the Constitution Caucus. As a reminder of why this effort is so important, I would like to close with advice from Thomas Jefferson: “If we think [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take if from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”
I yield back the balance of my time.
