Yesterday's post was about the Supreme Court's decision not to give Congress a blank check to establish "justice." Today, I'll talk about a blank check that the Court did write. 

The Constitution’s Preamble states that the federal government’s purpose is, among other things, to "promote the general Welfare." Some argue this gives Congress nearly unlimited power to spend on anything it deems beneficial. Beginning in 1936, the Supreme Court has largely adopted this view, holding that "general Welfare" means whatever Congress says it means, with virtually no limitations.

But the word "general" in "general Welfare" was restrictive, not decorative. It meant national or universal, as opposed to local or sectional. Spending had to benefit the entire nation, not specific regions, industries, or groups.

Historically, there were three views of the General Welfare Clause:

1. Madison/Jefferson: Congress can tax and spend only for purposes connected to its other enumerated powers - things like raising armies, regulating commerce, and establishing post offices.

2. Hamilton/Monroe: Congress can spend more broadly, but only for purposes that extend "throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot" - truly national, not local, purposes.

3. Modern Court: Congress can spend on anything it deems beneficial, with virtually no limit.

The broadest Founding-era interpretation (Hamilton's) imposed meaningful limits. The modern interpretation imposes none.

 In United States v. Butler (1936), the Supreme Court rejected Madison’s narrow view and declared that Congress’s spending power was separate from its enumerated powers. While it claimed to have adopted Hamilton’s view, it ignored his requirement that spending serve truly “general” (national) welfare rather than particular interests. The Court provided no meaningful test to distinguish general from particular welfare, instead deferring to Congress’s judgment.

Butler cracked the door to expansive federal power, though it attempted to impose a limit: Congress couldn’t use spending to coercively regulate matters reserved to states. That limitation was short-lived. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court vastly expanded the Commerce Clause to cover virtually any economic activity, even a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption. This allowed direct federal regulation of matters previously thought reserved to states. This made Butler’s coercion limit irrelevant - if Congress could directly regulate under the Commerce Clause, why worry about doing it indirectly through spending?

South Dakota v. Dole (1987) widened Butler’s crack into a chasm. The Court upheld conditional federal spending (withholding highway funds unless states raised their drinking age to 21), establishing a weak four-part test that almost always favors federal power. The “coercion” limit from Butler became toothless - financial pressure is permissible if it doesn’t become outright compulsion, a line the Court has rarely if ever found crossed.

Together, these cases effectively gave judicial blessing to crony capitalism. Courts virtually never strike down spending as failing the “general welfare” requirement, leaving Congress free to direct funds to particular industries, regions, or interest groups while claiming to promote the general welfare. Farm subsidies, corporate bailouts, industry-specific tax breaks, and targeted benefits for politically connected sectors all became constitutionally unassailable. A subsidy for sugar growers in a handful of states, or tax breaks for a single industry’s equipment purchases, can be defended as promoting “general welfare” with no fear of judicial scrutiny. The Court effectively abandoned any role in policing whether federal spending serves the nation as a whole or merely rewards those with political influence.

When courts abandon enforceable limits on phrases like "general Welfare," they don't make the Constitution more flexible or compassionate. They make it meaningless. A constitution that allows government to do whatever it wants in the name of noble-sounding goals isn't a constitution at all - it's a permission slip for unlimited power.