Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Charles_Main, Sep 18, 2010.

  1. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Simple question. If as you guys claim. The General Welfare clause of the constitution was meant to justify Federal social Welfare programs. Then how do you explain the fact that the people that wrote the constitution in many cases went on to serve in the WH and congress, and yet it was not until FDR that we had any form of Direct Federal Social Welfare programs?

    If they intended that, why when they were the ones getting to write the laws did they never pass any?

    Food for thought.
     
  2. blu
    Offline

    blu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,836
    Thanks Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +774
    do you reallly expect they would pass every law right away? why didn't they let blacks become full citizens since it said everyone is created equal? why did it take until mlks time?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. ConHog
    Offline

    ConHog BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    14,538
    Thanks Received:
    897
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +897
    Your answer of course negates your own argument and emboldens the one Charles is making.

    The FF did not make blacks equal, not because they didn't get around to it, but b/c they didn't believe it. By the same token, they did not create welfare not b/c they didn't get around to it, but because they didn't believe in it.

    Thank you for proving your own position wrong Blu.
     
  4. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,702
    Thanks Received:
    11,042
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,022
    I have no idea and have no opinion on this matter other than to say it is simply not possible to look hundreds of years into the future and be able to visualize what society will look like. FFS, most of us can't visualize what we're going to have for supper the next day.
     
  5. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    I thik it is shameful that we have Generals on welfare.
     
  6. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    He He
     
  7. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    While I am not opposed to a social net to help those who need it. I am opposed to claiming it is justified under because of the words General Welfare in the preamble.

    Image the implications of that. Virtually anything could then be justified the same way.

    Say we are attacked again my radical Muslim Terrorist. Suppose then that congress passes a law to intern all Muslims in the country. What would stop them from justifying in court as acting in the General Welfare. I think it simply opens up to broad of a power.
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Chuck, the US Constitution as well as many state Constitutions were based on the
    Massachusetts Constitution. The brain child of John Adams. In the Mass Constitution the state originally provided for the general welfare by directing the state to support houses of worship where monies were and when needed. This from a man who stated explicitly that the the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.

    Now I admit I may be simplifying things a bit much, but I hope this gets the message across in a manner that does not confuse.

    Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

    Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government...

    ...Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
    ...
    ...] [Art. XI of the Amendments substituted for this].
     
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Wrong. They believed in welfare for their time. Everything in context and with a view for the period they lived in. Welfare programs are as old as government itself.
     
  10. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    No it is not confusing at all, and I think it kind of proves my point. See you are quoting from a commonwealths Constitution. My point all along is that it is not the power of the Federal government to run Welfare. Now if it is not the power of the Fed, then it falls to the states. Which would be entirely consistent with what you have posted.

    Notice how it says at their own expense, as in the Federal Government should not be paying for it, It should be managed at the state level. At the lower level it would be much easy to run it efficiently and cut back on abuse and corruption. The bloated Federal Bureaucracy is simply to big and daunting to take on in many cases.

    The founders were big on keeping most things local for good reason. After all we had fought a revolution to throw off the control of a government thousands of miles away, and unable to know our needs, and issues well enough to govern us.

    Kinda of the same point here. If I am going to have assholes telling me how to live, I would rather they be in Lansing than DC.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2010

Share This Page