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

[rightwinger]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

My opinion is that “general welfare” means government doing those things that individuals cannot do for themselves

We all need aircraft carriers to protect us from bad nations

But it takes a collective effort to build and deploy them

General welfare has little to do with feeding poor people

It means that Congress should do what is best for the country. Feeding the poor is considered to be best for the country

 

[Questioner]

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no ******* way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your ******* head!

More nonsense and rhetoric.

Either show me an actual history of government spending, or stifle your rhetoric. Government, in practice, has been spending on a myriad of causes since day one, like it or not, these include transfers to the "poor", the "wealthy", and other things - including the development of the internet. I encountered some who were hypocrites and admitted they were fine with welfare being used on "non-originalist" causes, such as bank bailouts, so it was apparent their argument was solely based on emotion, or some stereotype of the "welfare" queen, not on logic or consistency. That's why I no longer address those arguments.

Plus weren't you the guy arguing that "working in a warehouse" is more productive than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

I read Justice Scalia's treaty on originalism, and many of the so-called "originalist" arguments people make online are flawed - Scalia's philosophy was very interesting, however even then it didn't specific what people would have to actually cut, in practice, in order to conform to that theory.

Plus, as far as I'm aware, "general welfare" only applied to the federal government, not the states' - the states were more or less at their own discretion.

I believe that issue came up during Romney's run for office - some people argued that a healthcare plan in Romney's state was similar to ObamaCare, which shows how little most people know about the law, such as the difference between state and federal.

 

[Mr Natural]

Why is this phrase so hard for righties to understand?

Are they that dense?

 

[rightwinger]

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no ******* way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your ******* head!

It is up to the Congress to decide what is best for the General Welfare of the country. For close to a hundred years, that has included helping the needy

 

[BrokeLoser]

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no ******* way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your ******* head!

It is up to the Congress to decide what is best for the General Welfare of the country. For close to a hundred years, that has included helping the needy

So tell us how WE “ the country” benefit by Congress forcing our best to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic?

 

[BrokeLoser]

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no ******* way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your ******* head!

More nonsense and rhetoric.

Either show me an actual history of government spending, or stifle your rhetoric. Government, in practice, has been spending on a myriad of causes since day one, like it or not, these include transfers to the "poor", the "wealthy", and other things - including the development of the internet. I encountered some who were hypocrites and admitted they were fine with welfare being used on "non-originalist" causes, such as bank bailouts, so it was apparent their argument was solely based on emotion, or some stereotype of the "welfare" queen, not on logic or consistency. That's why I no longer address those arguments.

Plus weren't you the guy arguing that "working in a warehouse" is more productive than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

I read Justice Scalia's treaty on originalism, and many of the so-called "originalist" arguments people make online are flawed - Scalia's philosophy was very interesting, however even then it didn't specific what people would have to actually cut, in practice, in order to conform to that theory.

Plus, as far as I'm aware, "general welfare" only applied to the federal government, not the states' - the states were more or less at their own discretion.

I believe that issue came up during Romney's run for office - some people argued that a healthcare plan in Romney's state was similar to ObamaCare, which shows how little most people know about the law, such as the difference between state and federal.

Haha..your spin and assertion is retarded.
“Our Government has been ******* good Americans over for years, therefore they have the right to continue ******* over the people.”

Listen to yourself bud.

 

[Questioner]

Why is this phrase so hard for righties to understand?

Are they that dense?

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no ******* way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your ******* head!

More nonsense and rhetoric.

Either show me an actual history of government spending, or stifle your rhetoric. Government, in practice, has been spending on a myriad of causes since day one, like it or not, these include transfers to the "poor", the "wealthy", and other things - including the development of the internet. I encountered some who were hypocrites and admitted they were fine with welfare being used on "non-originalist" causes, such as bank bailouts, so it was apparent their argument was solely based on emotion, or some stereotype of the "welfare" queen, not on logic or consistency. That's why I no longer address those arguments.

Plus weren't you the guy arguing that "working in a warehouse" is more productive than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

I read Justice Scalia's treaty on originalism, and many of the so-called "originalist" arguments people make online are flawed - Scalia's philosophy was very interesting, however even then it didn't specific what people would have to actually cut, in practice, in order to conform to that theory.

Plus, as far as I'm aware, "general welfare" only applied to the federal government, not the states' - the states were more or less at their own discretion.

I believe that issue came up during Romney's run for office - some people argued that a healthcare plan in Romney's state was similar to ObamaCare, which shows how little most people know about the law, such as the difference between state and federal.

Haha..your spin and assertion is retarded.
“Our Government has been ******* good Americans over for years, therefore they have the right to continue ******* over the people.”

Listen to yourself bud.

So go start a movement or revolution then - I posted the link to the Freegans who voluntarily "live of the grid". How many people will actually do that?

The reality is that most people won't do it, and many of the same people will simply be fine with the government spending on whatever project floats their fancy, such as a border wall or deportation, without any regard for whether or not it fits into some theory of originalism - per Scalia's book, the 1st Amendment doesn't technically give people a right to use "fighting words" on the internet, and the development of the internet is one of the many projects which received government funding.

So unless the people will do it in practice, rather than just continuing to rant about ubiquitous "welfare queens" I no longer take it seriously, it's just a simplistic emotional gripe which has been around since the dawn of man.

 

[Questioner]

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no ******* way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your ******* head!

It is up to the Congress to decide what is best for the General Welfare of the country. For close to a hundred years, that has included helping the needy

So tell us how WE “ the country” benefit by Congress forcing our best to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic?

Honestly, I'm not sure what the "wetbackness" has to do with it - if this is just another topic solely about race, I don't care.

Racial gripes have also been around for ever, and their stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no ******* way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your ******* head!

It is up to the Congress to decide what is best for the General Welfare of the country. For close to a hundred years, that has included helping the needy

So tell us how WE “ the country” benefit by Congress forcing our best to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic?

Hate propaganda

 

[Mac-7]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

My opinion is that “general welfare” means government doing those things that individuals cannot do for themselves

We all need aircraft carriers to protect us from bad nations

But it takes a collective effort to build and deploy them

General welfare has little to do with feeding poor people

It means that Congress should do what is best for the country. Feeding the poor is considered to be best for the country

First you say it has nothing to do with poor people then you say it does

Which is it?

 

[rightwinger]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

My opinion is that “general welfare” means government doing those things that individuals cannot do for themselves

We all need aircraft carriers to protect us from bad nations

But it takes a collective effort to build and deploy them

General welfare has little to do with feeding poor people

It means that Congress should do what is best for the country. Feeding the poor is considered to be best for the country

First you say it has nothing to do with poor people then you say it does

Which is it?

When people today hear the term “welfare” they think of taking care of poor people

Welfare use in the Constitution means what is good for the country

 

[bendog]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

It would help the thread if Loser had any idea that the phrase occurs in two different places in the const.

 

[Mac-7]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

My opinion is that “general welfare” means government doing those things that individuals cannot do for themselves

We all need aircraft carriers to protect us from bad nations

But it takes a collective effort to build and deploy them

General welfare has little to do with feeding poor people

It means that Congress should do what is best for the country. Feeding the poor is considered to be best for the country

First you say it has nothing to do with poor people then you say it does

Which is it?

When people today hear the term “welfare” they think of taking care of poor people

Welfare use in the Constitution means what is good for the country

When children are poorly educated libs can tell them anything and theyll believe it

 

[Ame®icano]

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

The answer is simple, if politically unpopular: kill the welfare state in all its forms. Every form of anti-family degeneracy is enabled by knowing that no matter how badly you **** up, Uncle Sam will be there to pick up the tab. Once you know it wont, you'll make better life choices and take responsibility for your actions.

The Common Law system is a system of welfare as a whole, as arguably all "government" is - if you were consistent on that angle, then that would be an anarchist argument, or regression to the stone age - since it would be an abolition of government in all of its forms; in practice no one is willing to participate in an anarchy and knows they won't survive, and aren't willing to do it. (The right to tax was always in the Constitution, so anarchist arguments are anti-American by that definition... whatever that means).

So no, in practice this is merely a fixation on specific types of 'welfare' to the exclusion of others which people take for granted... like public roads, even the development of the internet received government funding, so it would be one of the first systems to kill.

I suspected there would be answers like that, so I clarified what exactly I was thinking of.

Your only option would be to opt out of government altogether as much as possible, like the Freegans, or services which have received government funding.

How Freegans Work

You aren't willing to do it, so your content with the welfare you receive. Actions, not words.

This is why I no longer waste time on these silly theories, eventually I would be interested in researching the actual history of government spending from day one up until the present day. Childish responses like yours are just pure emotion.

You addressed only first sentence in my post while you ignored this:

"Every form of anti-family degeneracy is enabled by knowing that no matter how badly you **** up, Uncle Sam will be there to pick up the tab. Once you know it wont, you'll make better life choices and take responsibility for your actions."

 

[Ame®icano]

I've only read about 50-60 posts in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out. Its PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE the general welfare.

just my little $0.02

Per the US Constitution

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You're ignoring the preamble.

Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare”.

The Bill of Rights has been construed to provide procedural mechanisms for fair adjudication of those rights rather than carving out claims on the government to ensure that individuals actually have any social and economic assets to protect.

That mechanisms are in Article 1. Section 8. that clarify the role of Federal Government.

The Preamble is not the law

The actual Constitution specifies collect taxes to PROVIDE for the defense and General Welfare

The Bill of Rights provides protections for the people, not instructions on how Congress should operate. That is in Article 1

You are seeing only what you want to see, while ignoring everything else. The "provide for" part of the "construction" of whole article, and dblack explained it in post #854. You just have no enough intellect to comprehend Article as a whole, so you chop it into pieces that suits your narrative and serve your needs.

 

[Ame®icano]

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no ******* way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your ******* head!

It is up to the Congress to decide what is best for the General Welfare of the country. For close to a hundred years, that has included helping the needy

It's up to Congress, within the framework of Article 1, Section 8.

 

[Ame®icano]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

My opinion is that “general welfare” means government doing those things that individuals cannot do for themselves

We all need aircraft carriers to protect us from bad nations

But it takes a collective effort to build and deploy them

General welfare has little to do with feeding poor people

It means that Congress should do what is best for the country. Feeding the poor is considered to be best for the country

First you say it has nothing to do with poor people then you say it does

Which is it?

When people today hear the term “welfare” they think of taking care of poor people

Welfare use in the Constitution means what is good for the country

Let's test it with example.

Was putting Japanese Americans into internment camps good for the country?

 

[Questioner]

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

The answer is simple, if politically unpopular: kill the welfare state in all its forms. Every form of anti-family degeneracy is enabled by knowing that no matter how badly you **** up, Uncle Sam will be there to pick up the tab. Once you know it wont, you'll make better life choices and take responsibility for your actions.

The Common Law system is a system of welfare as a whole, as arguably all "government" is - if you were consistent on that angle, then that would be an anarchist argument, or regression to the stone age - since it would be an abolition of government in all of its forms; in practice no one is willing to participate in an anarchy and knows they won't survive, and aren't willing to do it. (The right to tax was always in the Constitution, so anarchist arguments are anti-American by that definition... whatever that means).

So no, in practice this is merely a fixation on specific types of 'welfare' to the exclusion of others which people take for granted... like public roads, even the development of the internet received government funding, so it would be one of the first systems to kill.

I suspected there would be answers like that, so I clarified what exactly I was thinking of.

Your only option would be to opt out of government altogether as much as possible, like the Freegans, or services which have received government funding.

How Freegans Work

You aren't willing to do it, so your content with the welfare you receive. Actions, not words.

This is why I no longer waste time on these silly theories, eventually I would be interested in researching the actual history of government spending from day one up until the present day. Childish responses like yours are just pure emotion.

You addressed only first sentence in my post while you ignored this:

"Every form of anti-family degeneracy is enabled by knowing that no matter how badly you **** up, Uncle Sam will be there to pick up the tab. Once you know it wont, you'll make better life choices and take responsibility for your actions."

Degeneracy is a part of mankind's wicked nature - I prefer not to concern myself with degenerates who father multiple children which they can't support.

Regardless, that emotional sentiment has nothing to do with the arguments.

 

[rightwinger]

I've only read about 50-60 posts in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out. Its PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE the general welfare.

just my little $0.02

Per the US Constitution

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You're ignoring the preamble.

Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare”.

The Bill of Rights has been construed to provide procedural mechanisms for fair adjudication of those rights rather than carving out claims on the government to ensure that individuals actually have any social and economic assets to protect.

That mechanisms are in Article 1. Section 8. that clarify the role of Federal Government.

The Preamble is not the law

The actual Constitution specifies collect taxes to PROVIDE for the defense and General Welfare

The Bill of Rights provides protections for the people, not instructions on how Congress should operate. That is in Article 1

You are seeing only what you want to see, while ignoring everything else. The "provide for" part of the "construction" of whole article, and dblack explained it in post #854. You just have no enough intellect to comprehend Article as a whole, so you chop it into pieces that suits your narrative and serve your needs.

The Constitution uses the term PROVIDE in that clause
That is what I pointed out

 

[rightwinger]

My opinion is that “general welfare” means government doing those things that individuals cannot do for themselves

We all need aircraft carriers to protect us from bad nations

But it takes a collective effort to build and deploy them

General welfare has little to do with feeding poor people

It means that Congress should do what is best for the country. Feeding the poor is considered to be best for the country

First you say it has nothing to do with poor people then you say it does

Which is it?

When people today hear the term “welfare” they think of taking care of poor people

Welfare use in the Constitution means what is good for the country

Let's test it with example.

Was putting Japanese Americans into internment camps good for the country?

Absolutely

It kept our country safe during wartime. The Constitution says provide for the defense