Javascript must be enabled to continue!
The Constitutional Limits of Government According to the Constitution's Framers
View through CrossRef
The U.S. Constitution, as understood by the men who wrote it – the Framers – authorized only a limited form of federal government: limited in what it is allowed to do. That power, in turn, can only legitimately come from the People, who created the Federal Government. The said government is merely their creature. The objects on which it may legislate and spend money are strictly limited by its text, most notably Article I of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. The so‑called Interstate Commerce, General Welfare, and Necessary and Proper clauses, sometimes invoked in the contemporary news media as giving the Federal Government broad powers, are actually limited in scope and do not give it any broad powers. This is clearly demonstrated by the writings of the men who wrote the Constitution – the Framers, chiefly James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Their writings, particularly the Federalist Papers, explain what exact objects the Federal Government’s authority is limited to, and why the claims of those who interpret the Constitution as giving the central government sweeping powers are wrong. The Necessary and Proper clause only gives the Congress the power to execute powers already granted, and does not give it any new substantive authority. The General Welfare clause (part of Clause 1 of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) is a general statement immediately limited and qualified by Clauses 3‑16; and in the Framers’ times, “welfare” meant only exemption from any unusual calamity and enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society. The Interstate Commerce Clause only authorizes Congress to prevent the states from inhibiting interstate commerce – the free transportation and sale of goods and services across state borders – with barriers such as interstate tolls. Thus, the Federal Government the Framers envisaged – and created with the Constitution – was one of strictly limited, enumerated powers. This article starts from the premise that the men who wrote the Constitution knew it best and are the most credible authority on its genuine meaning. This is confirmed further by the writings of constitutional law scholars and by rulings of the Supreme Court in the Marshall era – rulings which, to this day, greatly influence American jurisprudence, and whose authors looked to the Federalist Papers for the correct interpretation of the Constitution.
Title: The Constitutional Limits of Government According to the Constitution's Framers
Description:
The U.
S.
Constitution, as understood by the men who wrote it – the Framers – authorized only a limited form of federal government: limited in what it is allowed to do.
That power, in turn, can only legitimately come from the People, who created the Federal Government.
The said government is merely their creature.
The objects on which it may legislate and spend money are strictly limited by its text, most notably Article I of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.
The so‑called Interstate Commerce, General Welfare, and Necessary and Proper clauses, sometimes invoked in the contemporary news media as giving the Federal Government broad powers, are actually limited in scope and do not give it any broad powers.
This is clearly demonstrated by the writings of the men who wrote the Constitution – the Framers, chiefly James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.
Their writings, particularly the Federalist Papers, explain what exact objects the Federal Government’s authority is limited to, and why the claims of those who interpret the Constitution as giving the central government sweeping powers are wrong.
The Necessary and Proper clause only gives the Congress the power to execute powers already granted, and does not give it any new substantive authority.
The General Welfare clause (part of Clause 1 of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) is a general statement immediately limited and qualified by Clauses 3‑16; and in the Framers’ times, “welfare” meant only exemption from any unusual calamity and enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society.
The Interstate Commerce Clause only authorizes Congress to prevent the states from inhibiting interstate commerce – the free transportation and sale of goods and services across state borders – with barriers such as interstate tolls.
Thus, the Federal Government the Framers envisaged – and created with the Constitution – was one of strictly limited, enumerated powers.
This article starts from the premise that the men who wrote the Constitution knew it best and are the most credible authority on its genuine meaning.
This is confirmed further by the writings of constitutional law scholars and by rulings of the Supreme Court in the Marshall era – rulings which, to this day, greatly influence American jurisprudence, and whose authors looked to the Federalist Papers for the correct interpretation of the Constitution.
Related Results
On the Status of Rights
On the Status of Rights
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
In cases where the law conflicts with bioethics, the status of rights must be determined to resolve some of the tensions. ...
Analysis of the Constitutional Court Cases in 2022
Analysis of the Constitutional Court Cases in 2022
The Constitutional Court received a total of 2,829 cases in 2022 alone. Among the decisions made by the Constitutional Court in 2022, this paper reviews major decisions centered on...
A Review of the Constitutional Court's Use of International Human Rights Norms
A Review of the Constitutional Court's Use of International Human Rights Norms
Since the World War, international cooperation has been made to preserve the peace and interests of the human community, and representative results include the creation of internat...
Transformation of the Institution of Constitutional Control in the Republic of Belarus
Transformation of the Institution of Constitutional Control in the Republic of Belarus
The article examines the stages of the evolution of constitutional control in the Republic of Belarus, through the prism of the development of abstract and concrete control. Charac...
SHARIAH’S POSITION IN AFGHAN 2004 CONSTITUTION: A LEGAL ANALYSIS
SHARIAH’S POSITION IN AFGHAN 2004 CONSTITUTION: A LEGAL ANALYSIS
The legal position of Shariah in the 2004 Afghan constitution has been considerably debated due to the full involvement of the international community in the constitution-making pr...
Kedudukan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Mekanisme Hubungan antar Lembaga Negara
Kedudukan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Mekanisme Hubungan antar Lembaga Negara
The Constitutional Court was established following the reform era as part of the judiciary, playing a significant role in strengthening the constitutional system of Indonesia. Purs...
Amar Putusan Pada Kewenangan Judicial Review di Mahkamah Konstitusi
Amar Putusan Pada Kewenangan Judicial Review di Mahkamah Konstitusi
The Constitutional Court as an Indonesian state institution in the judicial review of the law against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has been regulated by Law N...
The notion of constitutional justice in federal systems
The notion of constitutional justice in federal systems
The history of the notion of justice dates back to ancient civilizations, but the concept of constitutional justice in the modern era holds great importance, because the written co...


