Search

According to James Madison, "the most important and fundamental question" he ever addressed was the meaning of and relation between the general welfare clause and the enumeration of particular powers. This question is the most "fundamental" because the answer determines the very "idea" or "nature" of the U.S. Constitution. Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. The thesis of this essay, however, is that, contrary to the commentators' claims, Madison argued that the clause was a substantive grant of power for the generally stated end and that the primary purpose of the ensuing enumeration was to define more particularly the ends alluded to by the phrase "general welfare." Hence, the meaning of the general constitutional government in the American federal system is a government oriented to a limited number of limited ends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court begins the twenty-first century with increasing use of a cramped approach to Fourth Amendment interpretation. That approach, championed by Justice Scalia, gives determinative weight to outdated common law rules from the framing era in assessing the reasonableness of searches and seizures. In the annual James Madison Lecture, Judge Blane Michael urges a fundamentally different—yet still traditional—approach. He argues that Fourth Amendment interpretation should be guided by the basic lesson learned from the mischief that gave birth to the Amendment in 1791: Namely, there is a need for constitutional protection against intrusive searches of houses and private papers carried out under grants of open-ended discretion to searching officers. This need for Fourth Amendment protection remains compelling in today's ever more interconnected world. Above all, the Court should not weaken the Fourth Amendment's protection by exclusive use of antiquated common law rules from the framing era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A direct comparison between the U.S. Bill of Rights and prominent English common law documents shows that the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution have only a limited relationship to English antecedents. Nor were the amendment proposals by the state ratifying conventions the primary source of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Instead, this famous addition to the federal Constitution was a summary of the common core found in the seven existing state bills of rights. James Madison's use of this source rested upon colonial developments in rights theory, contrasting notions of rights in England and America, competing notions of liberty in America in the 1780s, and the political exigencies surrounding the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]