Supreme Court Case Analysis

583 Words3 Pages

The United States is, and always has been to some extent, a partisan society. Since the early days of this representative democracy, Americans have taken sides on issues plaguing the country; even today, partisanship is present in the political system, especially in Congress. Even Supreme Court Justices take specific stances on issues in a variety of cases brought before the federal judiciary.
In the years prior to the ratification of the Constitution, people voiced their opinions on the drafts of said document. Two people in particular, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, voiced their opinions the loudest and secured their spots in history as conflicting arguments in regards to the federal government with Hamilton favoring a stronger centralized government, and Madison favoring a stronger state government. The Justices in United States v. Butler (1936) resurrected the voices of these statesman to justify the judgement of the court using historical intent in regards to the ability for Congress to lay a tax to promote the general welfare of the country. Justice Roberts delivered the court’s majority opinion, and in it argued the connotation of Article I Section VIII, otherwise referred to as the general welfare clause, …show more content…

As previously stated, Madison was an advocate for state’s powers. The segment of the Constitution being debated, Article I Section VIII, contains many clauses outlining the enumerated powers of the legislature. A Madisonian interprets the first clause, the general welfare clause, as applying to the enumerated powers in the following clauses of that section. The Congress can only act towards the general welfare if said duties falls within any of the powers delegated to them under the Constitution. By applying this restraint to their powers, this prevents the legislature from enacting legislation that could expand their power over the

Open Document