2 votes

Illegal Immigration is Stopped By Obeying the Constitution's Intent of the Welfare Clause

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

Day Convention In Full:

Mr. GEORGE MASON. "Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and "suppose" that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the "GENERAL WELFARE" and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws.

Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "this" government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the "general welfare", and under their "own" construction, say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not "extend" their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and "WILL". And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare (APP Note: Defense against "Foriegn" aggression) of the Union, I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL powers which are NOT granted, that they are retained by the states.

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE" may be


Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the POWER of "PROVIDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE", supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses.

He endeavored to show the committee that it "ONLY" empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public DEBTS and provide for the common DEFENCE; > that this >>>>"GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the general power of legislation", but to the >PARTICULAR power> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, "FOR THE PURPOSE" of paying the DEBTS and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE", that is, that they could raise AS "MUCH" money (ONLY) as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", "in CONSEQUENCE of this power".

The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained "NO new grant of power". To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper "laws" to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" "WILL" declare it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID". Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence. The power of providing for the general defence "ONLY" extends to "raise" any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts, But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives. This was "misrepresented".

If I understand it right, NO "new" power can be exercised."


Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)or to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN) "MAY" affect the interests of the citizens of the Union at "LARGE."

So now you now the real problem;

If the federal government can collect taxes for ONLY two (2) things, the national "DEBT" and common "DEFENCE", it can in no way collect for food stamps or medical, or social security or any other federal social program; They are not delegated that power.

Not only that, the federal government can make "NO REGULATION" that even "may" effect the Citizens of the Union at Large (same day convention).


That being said, "Zoning", "controlled growth" and "harsh regulations on business" is far more destructive to our economy than illegal immigration;

As well as the government granting Exclusive Privileges"

See link: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter...

Get rid of ZONING and allow TRUE free trade to exist, and we will be begging for more people.


If we stop shooting ourselves in the foot (we shoot ourselves in the foot by not obeying the Constitution), we would not create an attraction for misuse; Or at least, we would not be paying for it.

And by removing "exclusive privileges" as well as lifting regulations on business, the economy can begin to be active and prosper under TRUE free trade.

American Patriot Party