“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Sadly, the answer to the question that is the title of this column is “no,” Americans no longer want a constitutional government (at least not our current Constitution), nor do we have such. The author of both the quotes above is James Madison, the man given most credit for writing America’s Constitution. If anyone should know what the Constitution means, it’s because he wrote it. Please note his words carefully—“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government.” Indeed, (the second quote), where is the Constitution clause giving the national government the right to spend taxpayer’s money on charity? As Madison said, the states can do it; that’s what the 10th Amendment authorizes. However, nothing in the Constitutionally given powers to Congress says anything about spending taxpayer money on charity. So says James Madison, the main author of our Constitution.
Republicans—most of them—have been gleefully bashing the Biden administration for being slow in responding to the needs of people in southern states due to the damages caused by Hurricane Helene. “Where is the federal government?” “They don’t care about red states,” and there is probably much truth to that. Americans now believe when there is a national catastrophe, that the feds are supposed to jump in with whatever money is necessary. Remember George W. Bush and Hurricane Katrina? He moved too slowly and was crucified for it. Charity is now a power of the national government.
Where did we get that? Certainly not from the Constitution, James Madison being our witness. But then, 99% of what the federal government does today couldn’t be found in the Constitution if you read it until your eyeballs fell out. Washington, D.C., except in some structural matters that do not relate directly to power, pays absolutely no attention—none, zero, zilch—to what the Constitution actually says. And that applies to all three branches—Congress, the President, AND the Supreme Court.
There were reasons why our Founders did not assign charity as one of the powers of the national government. They knew history and the tendency of government to grow in power at the expense of the freedoms of the people, and they intended to try to prevent that. They also understood that charity and welfare were no business of government, and for very good reasons. And those reasons mostly have to do with the nature and object of government and what government can and cannot do effectively.
Our Founding Fathers well understood that the nationalization of government is the nationalization of force because everything the government does is by force or the threat thereof. Citizens know that paying taxes is necessary, but we don’t generally do it out of the goodness of our hearts, and most of us try to pay as little as possible. But there is this thing called the “IRS.” They don’t ask for charity, and they don’t politely request we cough up our hard-earned cash. And then say, “Oh, it’s ok if you don’t, it’s your choice.” There is force behind everything the government does.
Advertisement
And force is the very antithesis of charity. “We are going to force you to be charitable.” That is an oxymoron if ever one existed. And so, the Founders didn’t put “charity” in the Constitution. If we want the national government to force us to be charitable, which our Founders didn’t, then we need to put that in the Constitution. Otherwise, don’t ever say the United States government has a Constitutional right to provide charity for hurricane victims. Such is NOT in our Constitution.
The Founders also understood quite well that the people (especially government) who give you money can control you, can tell you what to do, and if you don’t do it, they can take away the money (or, in the case of government, worse than that). Power-loving politicians know this principle very well. Government telling you what to do isn’t exactly “freedom.” Every dime the government takes from me is one dime more power they have, and one dime less free I am. Government takes, it doesn’t give, and when it DOES give, it is only because it has first taken something from us, thereby lessening our freedom by just that much. And, to get what government gives us we have to do what government tells us. You want government charity? Then you’ll have to do what government tells you to do. And “a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have” (Thomas Jefferson).
Helping people in distress is certainly a very good, and needed, thing. But it isn’t in the Constitution as a power given to the national government. Charity comes from the heart, which a government does not possess. Individuals, churches, charitable organizations—these are the groups, historically, helping the needy in times of distress, and millions of Americans have graciously and generously done so in the recent hurricane. That’s as it should be.
My only point in this essay is, if we want Washington to do so much of our charity for us, then the Constitution needs to be amended to add that power, from the states, to the national government. That’s what the Constitution says. And then we’ll have to expect our government to grow in power at the expense of our freedom. Which is exactly what is has done over American history.
And that is exactly what our Founders warned us about and why we fought a civil war.
