Madison clearly states the rationale for the explanatory list of specific powers in relation to the general powers in this quote.

If there had been no examples of specific powers, then the Anti-federalists would have had a point about the general powers. Why enumerate a general power if only specific enumerated powers were to have any validity?

I think that was the point Madison was trying to make.

Here is the entirety of the Confederation equivalent to Section Eight, Article First of the US federal Constitution.
Madison was clearly referring to the speciousness, not unlike your own, of the charges being leveled by the Anti-federalists.

Well you are WRONG, The Anti-Federalists were arguing that the general welfare clause of the first part of section 8 amounted to a general grant of power to spend and legislate for anything related to the "general welfare" (this is exactly the position YOU hold). Madison flat out rejected this interpretation on several counts:

1. If the general welfare clause were a grant of power, then the subsequent list of powers specifically enumerated would be meaningless, as all those specific powers would be already included in the preceeding general power.

2. That the general welfare clause is actually a qualification to the preceeding taxation power, and not an independent grant of power.

BECAUSE THE DIDN'T ENUMERATE ANY GENERAL FUCKING POWER, The general welfare clause as Madison CLEARLY states to anyone who isn't a complete idiot is NOT an enumerated power, but a qualification on the preceeding taxation power (hence it being separated from the taxation power by a mere comma and not beginning with the word "to" capitalized as is the case for every other enumerated power).

The whole point of the particular powers listed is because there WAS NO general power that covered ANY of these things.

If there were already a "general" power to provide for the common defense, then the subsequent enumeration of a power to raise and provide for an army and navy would be completely redundant and meaningless.

Madison actual point was that it is absurd, given a listing of very specific enumerated powers, to interpret the common defense and general welfare clauses as an enumeration of general powers to spend and legislate. If you have alread created a general power to provide for the common defense there is NO conceivable reason to subsequently stipulate specific powers which would already be provided for under the general power.

For example, if I were to say the following to you:

You may have my keys to enter my home while I am on vacation, to take care things while I am away;

To water my plants;

To feed my cat;

To take in my mail; and

To turn the lights on at night and off in the morning.


Have I given you permission to call a designer and arrange for the remodelling of my kitchen which you felt was badly in need of renovation, or even to hire a maid service to come in and clean out things you considered unsightly? It would certainly be the case if I had broadly given you a blanket power to do anything in my house you deem to "take care of things", but given the fact that I listed specific things, any rational person would understand that you do NOT in fact have general permission to do anything you deem to be "taking care of things", but that your actions are limited to those specific tasks I listed.

Now, if I were to have said "for example", affirmatively indicating that the list of particulars was meant as a non-exhaustive set of examples, you might have a reasonable position. But nothing in the text or structure of Section 8 & 9 suggests in any way that the list of specific powers enumerated were meant to be mere examples of a much broader set of general powers.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

How did you reach your interpretation from the emphasized portions of the quotes?

Simply stating that I am wrong, while resorting to fallacy, doesn't imply that you are correct. Only that you prefer to resort to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Why was the same objection not reached under the Articles of Confederation, if the detractors of the Constitution were not simply resorting to fallacy, as well? There is no specific enumeration of powers in the Articles. Why would that constitutional precedent not be a valid precedent, and an example of Madison's view of presenting examples of specifics that concurs with my own?

Why are you trying to confound and mislead, if there are specific, but non-exhaustive, examples of the general powers?

EXACTLY, as Madison pointed out, the SAME language was included in the Articles and that language was NOT an enumeration of general powers under the Articles, just as it was not under the proposed Constitution, what he said was that the "detractors" of the proposed Constitution (the Anti-Federalists) were "stooping" to "misconstruction" of the proposed text. Madison says that the Anti-federlasts claim that the "general welfare" clause of the proposed Constitution amounted to an general grant of power to legislate and spend on anything considered "general welfare" was "absurd" and based on his accusing them of "stooping" to such a "misconstruction" in his opinion intentionally disingenuous.

And the very point you make, that the SAME language already existed in the Articles of Confederation and nobody would argue that the national government under the Articles had any such broad general power to spend and legislate, was the point Madison made in dismissing the misconstruction of those same words in the Constitution by the Federalists.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Your example is somewhat specious, self-serving, and not an accurate analogy.

However, if we provide an equivalent to your analogy,

Then,

You have the power to promote the general welfare of my estate while I am away;

To borrow money on the credit of my estate;

To regulate commerce as it relates to my estate;

To make sure every Thing in my estate is up to code;

To raise revenue for the protection of my estate;

And,

To water my plants;

To feed my cat;

To take in my mail;

To turn off the lights;

Someone with that type of power of attorney would probably be justified in the fiduciary exercise of making improvements to the estate.

You are misquoting Madison. He includes the general power to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare. Where is the specific power to provide for the common Offense, without a specific power of declaration of war?

How did you reach the conclusion that Article Third of the Articles of Confederation is not an enumeration of powers, general or not?

There is no such concept, the common defense included all military force. I realize you think stringing words together makes you sound like you are a deep thinker, but it just indicates how utterly devoid your basic understanding of history and the Constitution is.

I challenge you to find the words "common offense" anywhere in any of the founding documents, or contemporary discussions thereof. Enough of your frivolous psuedointellectual nonesense.

Your position is that of the Anti-Federalists, they claimed that the general welfare clause was a general grant of power, just as you do. Madison was emphatic in striking down their argument. That was the entire purpose of the Federalist Papers, to challenge the attacks of the Anti-Federalists. So "absurd" was the anti-federalist interpretation of the proposed Constitution's general welfare clause as granting a general power, Madison even questioned the genuinous of the misconstruction, suggesting that it was actually a knowingly dishonest construction (which would be YOUR position) being put forth by the opponents of the Constitution to impede its ratification.

I reach that conclusion because that was the common understanding of the Articles of Confederation, that there was no broad general power to promote the general welfare, the Articles were largely viewed as toothless and inadequate.

The proposed Constitution on the other hand provided strong but LIMITED powers to the Federal Government.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I am being somewhat facetious in my use of the terminology. However, since when does an unprovoked invasion of a foreign state not constitute an (common) Offense?

Do you consider Hitler's Fortress Europe to be the equivalent to our invasion of Iraq? Or are you merely being duplicitous to make a point you don't have?

The specific powers were meant to be limiting in their abuse of power in regards to individual liberties.

The specific powers were meant as specific guidelines for the general powers. Why were other uses not specifically prohibited by Article Ninth or Article Tenth if they were specifically denied to the federal government?

Anyone can understand the rationale for proscribing Bills of Attainder, it is a power that can be abused.

Anyone can understand the rationale for specifically limiting the coercive use of force of the state.

Where is the specific denial and disparagement of using monies to promote and provide for the general Welfare of the United States?