Also known as: general-welfare · general welfare clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
3 senses
A constitutional grant of authority to Congress to lay and collect taxes in order to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. The clause supplies an independent basis for federal spending programs that advance national interests, including those implemented through conditional grants to the states.
A constitutional grant of authority to Congress to lay and collect taxes in order to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. The clause supplies an independent basis for federal spending programs that advance national interests, including those implemented through conditional grants to the states.
A standard requiring that zoning ordinances and amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or the general welfare. Regulations failing this test are invalid as arbitrary exercises of the police power.
A statutory directive authorizing courts in dissolution proceedings to set aside portions of the parties' estates in trust for the support, maintenance, education, and general welfare of minor children.
A standard requiring that zoning ordinances and amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or the general welfare. Regulations failing this test are invalid as arbitrary exercises of the police power.
A statutory directive authorizing courts in dissolution proceedings to set aside portions of the parties' estates in trust for the support, maintenance, education, and general welfare of minor children.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Congress enacted a uniform excise tax on construction equipment used near interstate highways and directed the revenues into a fund that provides grants only to states adopting specified labor standards. Titan Equipment and the Road Builders Union challenged the statute. The tax and spending structure supplied the constitutional authority for the program.
2 common questions
Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare, but conditional grants to states must be stated clearly, promote the general welfare, relate to the federal interest in the program, and not induce states to violate other constitutional provisions or amount to coercion.
Supporting sources
Yes, when the conditions are related to the federal interest in the funded program, clearly stated, and not coercive. The Twenty-First Amendment does not bar such indirect influence through conditional grants.
Supporting sources
A municipality divided its territory into residential, commercial, and industrial districts and restricted uses accordingly. A landowner challenged the ordinance as violating due process. The classification was upheld because it bore a substantial relation to public health, safety, and general welfare.
A city council considered an amendment to the zoning map after publishing notice and holding a public hearing. The amendment altered permitted uses on several parcels. The change was sustained because it maintained a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
A landowner petitioned to rezone one parcel from conservation to a research district while neighboring parcels remained restricted. The city denied the request after finding it inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and lacking a legitimate public purpose beyond benefiting the applicant.
New York City applied its Landmarks Preservation Law to Grand Central Terminal, limiting alterations to the structure. The owners claimed a taking. The restrictions were upheld because they substantially related to promotion of the general welfare and applied evenhandedly to similarly situated properties.
In 1965 New York City enacted the Landmarks Preservation Law, which created an eleven-member Landmarks Preservation Commission and authorized it to designate buildings at least thirty years old that possess special historical or aesthetic interest. The law required owners of designated landmarks to obtain Commission approval before altering exterior architectural features and imposed an affirmative duty to keep those features in good repair. In August 1967 the Commission designated Grand Central Terminal a landmark and the city tax block it occupies a landmark site; the Board of Estimate confirmed the designation the following month. Penn Central Transportation Co. and its affiliates owned the Terminal, an eight-story Beaux-Arts structure completed in 1913 that served as the main station for the New York Central and Harlem lines. On January 22, 1968, Penn Central entered a fifty-year renewable lease with UGP Properties, Inc., under which UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building cantilevered above the Terminal and to pay Penn Central at least three million dollars annually after construction. Penn Central and UGP submitted two plans prepared by architect Marcel Breuer: Breuer I, a fifty-five-story tower resting on the Terminal roof, and Breuer II Revised, a fifty-three-story building that would have removed part of the 42d Street facade. After four days of hearings at which over 80 witnesses testified, the Commission denied this application as to both proposals. Penn Central filed suit in New York Supreme Court, Trial Term, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for a temporary taking. The trial court granted the injunctive and declaratory relief. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Penn Central had failed to prove deprivation of all reasonable beneficial use. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Terminal could still earn a reasonable return and that transferable development rights provided significant compensation. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
1 common questions
Amendments must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Spot zoning that benefits only a single owner without a public purpose fails this test and may be invalid.
Supporting sources
In a dissolution proceeding, the court directed that a portion of the parties' estates be placed in a trust for the support and education of their minor children. The order advanced the children's general welfare by securing funds for their future needs.
…based, are often subject to regulation by the States in the exercise of their undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare, or the Federal Government in the exercise of its delegated powers. But to agree that religiously grounded conduct must often be subject to the broad police power of the State is not to…