Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

[Charles_Main]

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.

 

[blu]

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.

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?

 

[ConHog]

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.

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?

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.

 

[Toro]

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.

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.

 

[uscitizen]

I thik it is shameful that we have Generals on welfare.

 

[Charles_Main]

I thik it is shameful that we have Generals on welfare.

He He

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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].

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

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].

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..

Well there in lies the problem with Health care. Notice you said if the people so decide. Yet every poll tells us the people did not want this version of health care reform, and yet we have it.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

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.

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.

Bull post from a shit poster.

The Framers were not attempting to recreate an old system, but to start a new one free from the traps and pitfalls of past governments. They were attampting to create checks and balances within government and between government and the public. Allowing a portion of the citizens to be dependent on government would jeopardize that.

 

[Charles_Main]

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?

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.

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.

Yes and that is why we had no Welfare at all until 150 years after they wrote it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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].

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.

Your point being what? Specific acts not passed in the 19th century, pertaining to 20th century society?

---

U.S. Constitution - Preamble - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is 'we the people of the United States' which has a specific meaning. We the people being an expression of national sovereignty. Not as individual states. The framers made exacting distinctions when speaking of the state legislatures and the people of the new nation.

You are misunderstanding what the US Constitution addresses.

 

[ConHog]

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.

Exactly right, only a total loon would argue against ANY welfare programs, but be honest about it, its a power we have CHOSEN to give the government, not one they are entitled to have.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

small book on the Supreme Court and the beginnings of Us Government, but full of more insights than many tomes I've read through the years

Jeffrey Rosen: The Supreme Court - The personalities and rivalries that defined America.

under 300 pages and cheap at places like Borders Book Store

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Anything can be, if the people so decide. That was the intent of the framers. They did lots of homework on republics and governments in general. Government has always had social welfare programs. They just look different as society changes. There is nothing vague about the idea of the people deciding through the legislature or government just what the General Welfare is at any given moment in the course of a nation's history..

Well there in lies the problem with Health care. Notice you said if the people so decide. Yet every poll tells us the people did not want this version of health care reform, and yet we have it.

The people of the nation have a voice in the Congress. That is how our government works - how it was laid out by the framers. They purposefully did not construct a mechanism for the people voicing wishes through plebiscite, which is what you are appealing to.

 

[saveliberty]

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].

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.

Your point being what? Specific acts not passed in the 19th century, pertaining to 20th century society?

---

U.S. Constitution - Preamble - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is 'we the people of the United States' which has a specific meaning. We the people being an expression of national sovereignty. Not as individual states. The framers made exacting distinctions when speaking of the state legislatures and the people of the new nation.

You are misunderstanding what the US Constitution addresses.

Of course a Preamble is going to stress national unity in the opening. That is part of its purpose. They had to get a bunch of states to sign on and be a big reasonably happy family. Did you think the Preamble was going to say, we the people of (insert states who passed the Constitution to date) in order to make some rules some us want to create establish blah blah blah? Get a clue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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.

Yes and that is why we had no Welfare at all until 150 years after they wrote it.

please read and address what I posted about the history and tradition of the US and the General Welfare. You are attacking a specific welfare program, and not the issue we are discussing