LibertyLemming
VIP Member
From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.
However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.
"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.
This country and every other modern industrial country with high literacy rates and low mortality rates has provided for the general welfare through taxation. How would schools, roads, education, police and fire protection etc. be paid for otherwise?
So maybe this was Madison's thinking at that time. He also didn't object to slavery and to having only propertied white males allowed to vote.
I'll post this one again:
I would also contend that the founders would never approve taxation on labor because it is a violation of a persons liberty and theft of their property, which is obviously protected in numerous places in the Constitution.