article 1 section 8

[Procrustes Stretched]

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.. as in the union.. not each and every individual and their personal needs...

Taking the statement completely, it is easy to understand

Have to agree with Dave on this one. Strictly speaking, I've always thought it was meant to be the welfare of the country, and not the welfare of the citizenry. Same with defense, of the country, but it's not the Government's job to defend me at all times from all threats.

How does one separate citizens and country? You can't have one without the other. No program can benefit the country and not benefit the citizens. To think otherwise is silly.

When one passes a program to facilitate clean air what benefits? The country? I did not know a country had to breathe.

A Foreign country detains a US Citizen.

The US Government is in some cases ready to go to war .. to defend the freedom and rights of citizenry of an individual.

Then 'general welfare of the United States' is the phrase. What is meant by the United States?

The United States, is a phrase used to encompass the citizens of all the individual states as a whole and separate unit. We have rights as US Citizens that trump any rights a State would want to enforce or deny,

The US Constitution as a document, was sent out to be ratified by the people as a whole. It was sent out with the request of an up or down vote. The framers specifically bypassed the state governments, the state legislators. The US Constitution was ratified by 'the people'

 

[DiamondDave]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Quite frankly, from a logical standpoint, that is in the best interest of the individual starving.. not INHERENTLY in the best interest of the country as an entity... and it is what that power is then relinquished to the states and the individuals themselves

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

yep. keeping individuals, or even a specific group, safe

 

[onecut39]

The current day definition of "welfare" was not in use when the founding fathers wrote our constitution.

It is that simple.

The dictionary definition is the same simply meaning well being. Social programs contribute to that well being and you look rather silly if you try to say the founders did not know that definition.

Absolutely. And I would agree with your assumption, although there is mixed historical information about it. But already we are into interpretation of the document as opposed to trying to be as strict as possible.

The definition of welfare has not changed. Look it up. The term, and it fits, has just been assigned to programs that fit the definition. Welfare programs do improve our well being.

 

[SniperFire]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

yep. keeping individuals, or even a specific group, safe

Say the freeloaders. LOL

 

[onecut39]

Have to agree with Dave on this one. Strictly speaking, I've always thought it was meant to be the welfare of the country, and not the welfare of the citizenry. Same with defense, of the country, but it's not the Government's job to defend me at all times from all threats.

How does one separate citizens and country? You can't have one without the other. No program can benefit the country and not benefit the citizens. To think otherwise is silly.

When one passes a program to facilitate clean air what benefits? The country? I did not know a country had to breathe.

A Foreign country detains a US Citizen.

The US Government is in some cases ready to go to war .. to defend the freedom and rights of citizenry of an individual.

Then 'general welfare of the United States' is the phrase. What is meant by the United States?

The United States, is a phrase used to encompass the citizens of all the individual states as a whole and separate unit. We have rights as US Citizens that trump any rights a State would want to enforce or deny,

The US Constitution as a document, was sent out to be ratified by the people as a whole. It was sent out with the request of an up or down vote. The framers specifically bypassed the state governments, the state legislators. The US Constitution was ratified by 'the people'

So what is your point?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Look at the abuse now occurring at the expense of those two propositions: general welfare and common defence. Even Hamilton would probably look away in disgust.

So change it. Don't simply try to get around it. Congress passes ill thought out programs all the time. Maybe you should address them instead of the constitution.

"Strict constitutionalists have this tendency to try and curtail congress with their own interpretations rather than simply admitting they are out voted.

There is no need to change it. The founders were correct. It is built on a premise that our leaders are honest and are not want to shred the very essence of what allows them to serve the people. Sadly, most are corrupt and dishonest. Any system will eventually fail unless honesty, accountability, and responsibility are cornerstones.

The people ratified the US Constitution and it contains an amendment that allows, asks, the people to change it at will. The process is made difficult because they knew a bit about human nature

 

[onecut39]

The current day definition of "welfare" was not in use when the founding fathers wrote our constitution.

It is that simple.

Neither were AK-47's and AR-15's when they were talking about the right to bear arms. Can't have it both ways.

Obviously you can because this too has been "interpreted". All the rules of grammar tie the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia". It is one sentence for god's sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not part of a well regulated militia? No right to bear arms. Unless you interpret it differently.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How does one separate citizens and country? You can't have one without the other. No program can benefit the country and not benefit the citizens. To think otherwise is silly.

When one passes a program to facilitate clean air what benefits? The country? I did not know a country had to breathe.

A Foreign country detains a US Citizen.

The US Government is in some cases ready to go to war .. to defend the freedom and rights of citizenry of an individual.

Then 'general welfare of the United States' is the phrase. What is meant by the United States?

The United States, is a phrase used to encompass the citizens of all the individual states as a whole and separate unit. We have rights as US Citizens that trump any rights a State would want to enforce or deny,

The US Constitution as a document, was sent out to be ratified by the people as a whole. It was sent out with the request of an up or down vote. The framers specifically bypassed the state governments, the state legislators. The US Constitution was ratified by 'the people'

So what is your point?

My point? I gave reason to your argument

 

[onecut39]

So change it. Don't simply try to get around it. Congress passes ill thought out programs all the time. Maybe you should address them instead of the constitution.

"Strict constitutionalists have this tendency to try and curtail congress with their own interpretations rather than simply admitting they are out voted.

There is no need to change it. The founders were correct. It is built on a premise that our leaders are honest and are not want to shred the very essence of what allows them to serve the people. Sadly, most are corrupt and dishonest. Any system will eventually fail unless honesty, accountability, and responsibility are cornerstones.

The people ratified the US Constitution and it contains an amendment that allows, asks, the people to change it at will. The process is made difficult because they knew a bit about human nature

Difficulty is not an excuse for not following the constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

yep. keeping individuals, or even a specific group, safe

Say the freeloaders. LOL

The biggest freeloaders in American history may well have been the Founders and Framers who owned slaves.

 

[Ravi]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Quite frankly, from a logical standpoint, that is in the best interest of the individual starving.. not INHERENTLY in the best interest of the country as an entity... and it is what that power is then relinquished to the states and the individuals themselves

It's in the interest of both the individual in question and the country as a whole. Hungry and/or poor people commit crimes, spread disease, don't spend money, etc....none of that is good for the well being of the country. Nor is it cost effective in the long run.

 

[regent]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.
Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no need to change it. The founders were correct. It is built on a premise that our leaders are honest and are not want to shred the very essence of what allows them to serve the people. Sadly, most are corrupt and dishonest. Any system will eventually fail unless honesty, accountability, and responsibility are cornerstones.

The people ratified the US Constitution and it contains an amendment that allows, asks, the people to change it at will. The process is made difficult because they knew a bit about human nature

Difficulty is not an excuse for not following the constitution.

huh?


you appear confused here. I agreed with you earlier. now? I'm gonna leave you be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

As long as that illegal government plans not to be restricted, or even influenced by, the United States Constitution.


You're not endorsing that, are you?

 

[onecut39]

Just ask the guy who wrote it:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


- James Madison

Madison opposed it. It was passed anyway, by the other Federalists, including Hamilton and Washington. The winners words are the ones that matter.

Wrong as usual, dildo.

The Supremes even upheld Madison's intentions that general welfare was not for handouts to the peeps. But then a subsequent case said that Congress could decide if handouts to peeps were for the general welfare of the Nation.

So as usual it was a backdoor implementation that was an end run around the plain language of the Constitution, and Hamilton certainly did NOT argue for the backdoor interpretation.

So you are saying the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the welfare clause. You don't agree.

That's the way it goes. Sometimes you are just outvoted.

 

[DiamondDave]

Basically, the government can provide for the general welfare of the country in whatever way it sees fit as long as the citizens go along with it.

Keeping the poor from starving to death is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Quite frankly, from a logical standpoint, that is in the best interest of the individual starving.. not INHERENTLY in the best interest of the country as an entity... and it is what that power is then relinquished to the states and the individuals themselves

It's in the interest of both the individual in question and the country as a whole. Hungry and/or poor people commit crimes, spread disease, don't spend money, etc....none of that is good for the well being of the country. Nor is it cost effective in the long run.

No.. you may FEEL that way... but it is a logical fallacy to assume that... and again, it is why the fed does not have that power and that power is relinquished to the states and the individuals respectively via the 10th amendment

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So change it. Don't simply try to get around it. Congress passes ill thought out programs all the time. Maybe you should address them instead of the constitution.

"Strict constitutionalists have this tendency to try and curtail congress with their own interpretations rather than simply admitting they are out voted.

There is no need to change it. The founders were correct. It is built on a premise that our leaders are honest and are not want to shred the very essence of what allows them to serve the people. Sadly, most are corrupt and dishonest. Any system will eventually fail unless honesty, accountability, and responsibility are cornerstones.

The people ratified the US Constitution and it contains an amendment that allows, asks, the people to change it at will. The process is made difficult because they knew a bit about human nature

I see nothing wrong with it. The founders were right about both. Our leaders are consistently wrong about the constitution. They are abusing the propositions of common defence and general welfare. It is they that need to go....not the constitution.

 

[DiamondDave]

Madison opposed it. It was passed anyway, by the other Federalists, including Hamilton and Washington. The winners words are the ones that matter.

Wrong as usual, dildo.

The Supremes even upheld Madison's intentions that general welfare was not for handouts to the peeps. But then a subsequent case said that Congress could decide if handouts to peeps were for the general welfare of the Nation.

So as usual it was a backdoor implementation that was an end run around the plain language of the Constitution, and Hamilton certainly did NOT argue for the backdoor interpretation.

So you are saying the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the welfare clause. You don't agree.

That's the way it goes. Sometimes you are just outvoted.

Show the power within the constitution that granted the SC any power to do so (hint, there is no power of what is known as judicial review, in today's terms, that is granted to the judicial branch)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What many think of welfare, that is helping indigent Americans, was done by the states. During the Great Depression states could not meet their responsiblity to the poor the federal government took on the task. Today, that task is shared by federal and state governments.
The nation of the founder's Constitution has changed. With a nation of 13 states, mostly farmers, few corporations and our manufacturing just beginning, the government began helping manufacturers with tariffs, internal improvments and Court decisions that removed powers from the states.
Perhaps the biggest error the founders made was not providing for political parties.

They actually said that the party system would be our undoing. Of course they were correct.