Question for the General Welfare Crowd.

[Procrustes Stretched]

A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about. Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles. Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.

To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe.

"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Then the preamble would be full of redundancies.

gawd, pay attention to what you read and then what you post.

 

[Twofox]

A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about. Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles. Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.

To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe.

"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Then the preamble would be full of redundancies.

gawd, pay attention to what you read and then what you post.

Yeah troll more.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We have not chosen, the Constitution provides.

No the Constitution does not provide for the type of welfare you suggest. You wish to derive power from a Preamble. Preambles are simply opening statements. Articles grant powers. Lawyers like to muddy the waters and opened up this whole line of thinking.

A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about. Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles. Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.

To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe. To me it does not mean to provide subsistance living for everyone who wants it. This is the debate posed by the OP. The deffinition of the phrase.

General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Madison and Hamilton argued both sides of this issue. Keep in mind that Hamiltion tended towards a more powerful fed overall.

Also see: Answers.com - What does general welfare mean

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending. The narrow construction of the General welfare clause is unusual when compared to similar clauses in most State constitutions, and many constitutions of other countries.

To me it does not mean to provide subsistance living for everyone who wants it.


and no one said it did. But if the people decided through their representatives that this is what they wanted it would be so. But no one has ever argued for a subsistance[sic] living for everyone who wants it.


you're making shit up and then arguing with yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about. Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles. Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.

To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe.

"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Then the preamble would be full of redundancies.

gawd, pay attention to what you read and then what you post.

Yeah troll more.

look at the substance of my posts as a whole here, and not my style and you will see that you are a troll without having a clue you are.

you do address any points made or make new ones. you make talk show type of speeches and deliver straw man arguments you then go on to refute.

there's more, but I decided to make tonight -- Be Kind To Douchebag Nite

enjoy

 

[saveliberty]

A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about. Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles. Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.

To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe.

"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Then the preamble would be full of redundancies.

gawd, pay attention to what you read and then what you post.

If you were paying attention to what you read, you might have noticed some interesting choice of words by the Framers.

Justice is established, not tranquilty, common defense or general welfare.

Tranquility is insured, not justice, common defense or general welfare.

Common defense is provided, not justice, tranquility or general welfare.

General welfare is promoted, not established, insured or provided.

 

[Twofox]

"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Then the preamble would be full of redundancies.

gawd, pay attention to what you read and then what you post.

Yeah troll more.

look at the substance of my posts as a whole here, and not my style and you will see that you are a troll without having a clue you are.

you do address any points made or make new ones. you make talk show type of speeches and deliver straw man arguments you then go on to refute.

there's more, but I decided to make tonight -- Be Kind To Douchebag Nite

enjoy

Yer an idiot that I won't argue with. Picking apart a post so you can discount someones point over trivial shit is immature and what trolls do.

 

[Paulie]

Even the enumerated powers themselves weren't specific enough.

"To regulate commerce among foreign nations, among the several states, among the indian tribes, ... "

That certainly doesn't point out what bureaucracies may or may not apply. I'm not sure how one just assumes that any regulatory legislation is authorized via this clause, but it certainly seems as though it is based on how congress seems to look at it.

The constitution is vague as hell, and we need to amend it to clarify just what would be considered "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers in today's world.

 

[Charles_Main]

The people can vote to dissolve the United States, if they wish.

~Mark

interesting concept. Do you have any arguments with facts and theories to back this assertion up?

The only way I could see it happening legally would be if we elected representatives who would some how Amend the Constitution to dissolve the union.

 

[Chris]

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.

The people who wrote the Constitution chewed tobacco and owned slaves.

Times change.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

The people who wrote the Constitution chewed tobacco and owned slaves.

Times change.

True, they smoke it now and call them illegal servants. You may have overlooked it, but they are quickly making slaves out of us.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A preamble is a general outline of what the document is about. Since it is a legal document, anything it empowers is laid out in articles. Since general welfare is debatable, then we are obliged to amend the constitution to specify, in articles, any new powers.

To me "General welfare" means something similar to general protection, and making laws that keep the citizens safe.

"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Then the preamble would be full of redundancies.

gawd, pay attention to what you read and then what you post.

If you were paying attention to what you read, you might have noticed some interesting choice of words by the Framers.

...

please stop thinking I'll play a game of dueling framers' quotes without a context. I am far too bored by the sophomoric point scoring you people engage in.

 

[saveliberty]

"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Then the preamble would be full of redundancies.

gawd, pay attention to what you read and then what you post.

If you were paying attention to what you read, you might have noticed some interesting choice of words by the Framers.

...

please stop thinking I'll play a game of dueling framers' quotes without a context. I am far too bored by the sophomoric point scoring you people engage in.

Your withdrawal from the discussion is dually noted. I was reviewing the sentence structure and its impact on the debate. Further, I did not bring that quote into the fray, but it is certainly proper to continue with information brough into a debate. You lose bitch.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Even the enumerated powers themselves weren't specific enough.

"To regulate commerce among foreign nations, among the several states, among the indian tribes, ... "

That certainly doesn't point out what bureaucracies may or may not apply. I'm not sure how one just assumes that any regulatory legislation is authorized via this clause, but it certainly seems as though it is based on how congress seems to look at it.

The constitution is vague as hell, and we need to amend it to clarify just what would be considered "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers in today's world.

One must ask why the framers saw fit to specify certain things and to be vague with others. This can be done with a very simple set of questions with some very simple conclusions.

Necessary and proper is a phrase that is purposefully left open to debate and interpretation, so that it can be used 'in today's world' or in the world of any other time.

Clarifying it in an amendment, for the particular circumstances of today would be tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We have a representative republic with three branches of government along with certain checks and balances. This and our type of democratic politics is the framework we've always used to consider/interpret how to carry out powers granted.

It works. It is a slow and deliberative process, but it works. As tie passes what seems of grave and immediate concern usually ends up just being populist or progressive bullshit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The people can vote to dissolve the United States, if they wish.

~Mark

interesting concept. Do you have any arguments with facts and theories to back this assertion up?

The only way I could see it happening legally would be if we elected representatives who would some how Amend the Constitution to dissolve the union.

I would think we'd need all the states on board to agree that if any portion, say 75% say dissovle, dissolve we could. Similar to how the USA was formed. As a group all 13 states agreed ahead of time that if a certain number agreed on something, it was all for one, one for all.

 

[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.

The people who wrote the Constitution chewed tobacco and owned slaves.

Times change.

True, they smoke it now and call them illegal servants. You may have overlooked it, but they are quickly making slaves out of us.

can you two hysterical buffoons take this elsewhere?

 

[Paulie]

Even the enumerated powers themselves weren't specific enough.

"To regulate commerce among foreign nations, among the several states, among the indian tribes, ... "

That certainly doesn't point out what bureaucracies may or may not apply. I'm not sure how one just assumes that any regulatory legislation is authorized via this clause, but it certainly seems as though it is based on how congress seems to look at it.

The constitution is vague as hell, and we need to amend it to clarify just what would be considered "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers in today's world.

One must ask why the framers saw fit to specify certain things and to be vague with others. This can be done with a very simple set of questions with some very simple conclusions.

Necessary and proper is a phrase that is purposefully left open to debate and interpretation, so that it can be used 'in today's world' or in the world of any other time.

Clarifying it in an amendment, for the particular circumstances of today would be tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We have a representative republic with three branches of government along with certain checks and balances. This and our type of democratic politics is the framework we've always used to consider/interpret how to carry out powers granted.

It works. It is a slow and deliberative process, but it works. As tie passes what seems of grave and immediate concern usually ends up just being populist or progressive bullshit.

I happen to think that flies in the face of limiting government power.

If all congress needs to do is interpret what is "necessary and proper" at any given time, then they really don't have any limitation at all.

An amendment establishes the limitation for NOW. If in the future, the people decide that times have progressed to where something more is needed, then another amendment would be necessary.

 

[saveliberty]

The people who wrote the Constitution chewed tobacco and owned slaves.

Times change.

True, they smoke it now and call them illegal servants. You may have overlooked it, but they are quickly making slaves out of us.

can you two hysterical buffoons take this elsewhere?

Alter my quotes and then think I'll just walk away? I'm here for awhile bitch.

 

[saveliberty]

interesting concept. Do you have any arguments with facts and theories to back this assertion up?

The only way I could see it happening legally would be if we elected representatives who would some how Amend the Constitution to dissolve the union.

I would think we'd need all the states on board to agree that if any portion, say 75% say dissovle, dissolve we could. Similar to how the USA was formed. As a group all 13 states agreed ahead of time that if a certain number agreed on something, it was all for one, one for all.

Not sure why your so delusional. Congress would never give up power. Also, Congress doesn't have that power. As noted, 75% of the states must pass the measure by a majority within their states. More likely, a civil war would just breakout under those conditions. Since major cities seem to get the bulk of federal funds, I would imagine it would be a seige of these cities.