What did our founders really mean when they said “general welfare”?

[rightwinger]

With regard to the scope and power of government, they intended to do exactly that. The whole point of the Constitution was to make it clear what we were signing up for with the new government - so that it wasn't just a blind agreement to be "ruled". It promised us that government would stay limited to certain powers and wouldn't become a majority rules free-for-all.

You guys keep selling that bullshit about limited powers of Congress
It hasn’t stood up in court for over 200 years

Congress is limited by the will of We the People

 

[dblack]

You guys keep selling that bullshit about limited powers of Congress
It hasn’t stood up in court for over 200 years

But it accurately answers the question: What did the founders really mean when they said general welfare? Turns out it was a bait and switch.

 

[rightwinger]

But it accurately answers the question: What did the founders really mean when they said general welfare? Turns out it was a bait and switch.

They meant Congress will pass laws for the good of We the People

 

[dblack]

They meant Congress will pass laws for the good of We the People

Nope. I mean, you can keep repeating that over and over again. But that's not what they meant. I'd ask whether you've read the Federalist Papers, etc, etc... but I've beat around this bush with you before, and I know you don't really care. You're just here to spread your propaganda. Best of luck to you on your mission.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope. I mean, you can keep repeating that over and over again. But that's not what they meant. I'd ask whether you've read the Federalist Papers, etc, etc... but I've beat around this bush with you before, and I know you don't really care. You're just here to spread your propaganda. Best of luck to you on your mission.

Federalist Papers are an opinion piece of some of those who signed the Constitution
It has no legal bearing

 

[dblack]

Federalist Papers are an opinion piece of some of those who signed the Constitution

Nope. They were the sales pitch of those who wrote it. So, utterly relevant as to their intent.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope. They were the sales pitch of those who wrote it. So, utterly relevant as to their intent.

What counted was what actually made it into the Constitution
Those who signed it signed up to those words, not Madison’s interpretation

 

[dblack]

What counted was what actually made it into the Constitution
Those who signed it signed up to those words, not Madison’s interpretation

Madison wrote the fucking thing. State signatories signed it based on his "interpretation" as presented in the Federalist Papers.

You're making a fool of yourself. But rest easy. Your side won. Hamilton pulled off the bait and switch. Arguably, that makes the Constitution null and void, like if you change a contract after its signed, but I don't see any states seceding over it. Republicans don't even seem to care.

 

[80zephyr]

No piece of legislation affects all citizens equally

But it can. No one is specifically exempted.

 

[rightwinger]

But it can. No one is specifically exempted.

Some legislation helps wealthy people more than poor
Other helps the poor more

 

[80zephyr]

Some legislation helps wealthy people more than poor
Other helps the poor more

And both are wrong.

 

[E. Pluribus]

The general welfare clause is in fact too general, and politicians will use it however they can for their own advantage. I think the founders just wanted the citizens to be happy and prosper and nothing more.

 

[rightwinger]

The general welfare clause is in fact too general, and politicians will use it however they can for their own advantage. I think the founders just wanted the citizens to be happy and prosper and nothing more.

The Constitution does not define what defense should be or what general welfare should be
They left it up to Congress

 

[dblack]

The Constitution does not define what defense should be or what general welfare should be
They left it up to Congress

It also failed to specify what the definition of "is" is.

 

[E. Pluribus]

It reads "promote the general welfare" and not "ensure the general welfare", meaning to create the conditions but you still have to get off your dead ass.

 

[rightwinger]

It reads "promote the general welfare" and not "ensure the general welfare", meaning to create the conditions but you still have to get off your dead ass.

It says provide for the general welfare

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It says provide for the general welfare

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

does not actually grant any specific authority to do anything. Only the listed powers do.

 

[rightwinger]

does not actually grant any specific authority to do anything. Only the listed powers do.

Nobody interprets it that way for 200 years

Congress has broad authority

 

[dblack]

Nobody interprets it that way for 200 years

Congress has broad authority

But the question of the thread is what the founders meant. They made that clear.

 

[rightwinger]

But the question of the thread is what the founders meant. They made that clear.

Evidently they didn’t