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

[danielpalos]

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.

We should Always promote the general welfare at the expense of the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

 

[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.

We should Always promote the general welfare at the expense of the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Great. Just don't forget that you are the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Promote it at your own expense.

 

[danielpalos]

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;

It's a description of one power (the taxation power) not several. The words after "Excises, ...." are clauses limiting the main sentence. They limit the reasons for which Congress can levy taxes. They site the "common" defense and the "general" welfare to stipulate that these taxes can't just be collected for the benefit of our rulers and their friends.

The conceit of statists is that these clauses represent additional powers. They want us to read it thusly: "Congress shall have the Power to ... provide for the .... general welfare." If you chop up the sentence and rearrange it like that, you can get the meaning they want out of it. But if we allowed that kind of "construction", you could twist the Constitution into anything you want.

Yet, the right wing can imply a power for the general badfare, or the general malfare, or the general warfare?

Government solves all problems for the right wing not Capitalism.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

The Federalist Number Forty-One

 

[Questioner]

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.

We should Always promote the general welfare at the expense of the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Great. Just don't forget that you are the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Promote it at your own expense.

Nope, not happening.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We should Always promote the general welfare at the expense of the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Great. Just don't forget that you are the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Promote it at your own expense.

Simply because you say so? Our legislators have to take a vote on it, not you.

 

[Questioner]

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.

We should Always promote the general welfare at the expense of the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Great. Just don't forget that you are the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Promote it at your own expense.

Simply because you say so? Our legislators have to take a vote on it, not you.

At this point in my life, I more or less consider discussions moot when they're predicated people either not knowing what the law is, or not caring.

I had a discussion with a serious anarchist once, he was one of the few I consider ever worth encountering, since his philosophy was, at least in theory based on devout non-violence, and he was at least attempting to be sincere.

Even then he couldn't advocate his theory of "non-aggression" without engaging in aggression himself, and was forced to admit he was content partaking in government since he wasn't willing to risk fear of death if he found a way to "opt-out" of government as much as possible, so I consider such discussion moot at this point, nor would he acknowledge that strict "non-aggression" is physically impossible (at most, one could minimize it but not eliminate it), and was only concerned with certain types or certain venues of aggression (e.x. "taxation is theft"), not with aggression or worldviews which promote aggression as they actually exist in a myriad of contexts in day to day life, and that some degree of "aggression" is and would always be necessary to oppose those types of worldviews from infiltrating the rest of society, as he himself was doing by engaging in aggression to promote his view of "non-aggression", not willing to admit either it's futility or its impossibility, nor willing to acknowledge the existence of different forms of government, preferring instead to dishonestly equate all governments with "totalitarian", "socialism", and so forth - despite America's system of government, in fact, not being totalitarian or tyrannical (it's a system of checks and balances with a Constitution which limits government actions - not an absolute monarchy, or government in which a leader or party has unrestricted power).

 

[Mac-7]

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

It was a great hardship on the japanese, most of whom were loyal Americans

But feeling against japan were very high so the internees were also saved from random violence against them

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

Is this your “hey look at me...I’m smart” post?
You hoping to inject some hair splitting semantics? Why post meaningless shit?
“General welfare” in the context of the preamble and article one mean the same thing...NATIONAL WELFARE...not the general welfare of individuals and or factions.

 

[BrokeLoser]

T

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.

Don’t be scared...it’s sometimes about race because guess what...it’s kinda about race.
You see, our great framers carefully constructed the U.S Constitution to be of sole benefit to We The People...the citizenry of the US...NOT MEXICO!
The U.S. Constitution is not an international document that extends to citizens of foreign nations....Think once, why would our brilliant founders include any writings with the intent of ******* over American citizens and benefiting Mexico’s people...Does that really make sense to you?

 

[Questioner]

T
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.

Don’t be scared...it’s sometimes about race because guess what...it’s kinda about race.
You see, our great framers carefully constructed the U.S Constitution to be of sole benefit to We The People...the citizenry of the US...NOT MEXICO!
The U.S. Constitution is not an international document that extends to citizens of foreign nations....Think once, why would our brilliant founders include any writings with the intent of ******* over American citizens and benefiting Mexico’s people...Does that really make sense to you?

Non-sequiter, if you're talking about citizenship then being "Mexican" has nothing to do with.

 

[Questioner]

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.

Is this your “hey look at me...I’m smart” post?
You hoping to inject some hair splitting semantics? Why post meaningless shit?
“General welfare” in the context of the preamble and article one mean the same thing...NATIONAL WELFARE...not the general welfare of individuals and or factions.

The state or states themselves are welfare systems.

In practice, most of these arguments are based on emotions or stereotypes rather than reason - the only consistent position would be anarchism, which would mean that "America" as an ideal or institution is irrelevant.

In practice, it's just people bemoaning certain types or instances of welfare for emotional reasons rather than logic, while at the same time often lauding other forms of welfare or state expenditure regardless of its Originalism or not - or living in denial of what the government is, or that "taxation" in some form or another has existed since the dawn of mankind, and will likely never go away entirely - they know they wouldn't survive in an anarchy, as I'd bet 99% of the population wouldn't - so they refuse to take it to its radical conclusion.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

Don’t be scared...it’s sometimes about race because guess what...it’s kinda about race.
You see, our great framers carefully constructed the U.S Constitution to be of sole benefit to We The People...the citizenry of the US...NOT MEXICO!
The U.S. Constitution is not an international document that extends to citizens of foreign nations....Think once, why would our brilliant founders include any writings with the intent of ******* over American citizens and benefiting Mexico’s people...Does that really make sense to you?

Non-sequiter, if you're talking about citizenship then being "Mexican" has nothing to do with.

Haha....GAY!
This one scares you doesn’t it?
How is it non sequiter?
This is your post....

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.

 

[Questioner]

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.

Don’t be scared...it’s sometimes about race because guess what...it’s kinda about race.
You see, our great framers carefully constructed the U.S Constitution to be of sole benefit to We The People...the citizenry of the US...NOT MEXICO!
The U.S. Constitution is not an international document that extends to citizens of foreign nations....Think once, why would our brilliant founders include any writings with the intent of ******* over American citizens and benefiting Mexico’s people...Does that really make sense to you?

Non-sequiter, if you're talking about citizenship then being "Mexican" has nothing to do with.

Haha....GAY!
This one scares you doesn’t it?
How is it non sequiter?
This is your post....

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.

"American" refers to citizenship as far as the law is concerned, if a person is a citizen, being Mexican has nothing to do with it.

So no, your post was very gay, the fixation is simply on race.

 

[rightwinger]

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

It was a great hardship on the japanese, most of whom were loyal Americans

But feeling against japan were very high so the internees were also saved from random violence against them

In 1942, America was racist as all hell
After Pearl Harbor, it was not good to be Japanese

Even the Supreme Court agreed to internment

 

[Questioner]

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

It was a great hardship on the japanese, most of whom were loyal Americans

But feeling against japan were very high so the internees were also saved from random violence against them

In 1942, America was racist as all hell
After Pearl Harbor, it was not good to be Japanese

Even the Supreme Court agreed to internment

I'd venture that drastic measures tend to happen during wartime.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We should Always promote the general welfare at the expense of the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Great. Just don't forget that you are the general badfare, the general malfare, and the general warfare.

Promote it at your own expense.

Simply because you say so? Our legislators have to take a vote on it, not you.

At this point in my life, I more or less consider discussions moot when they're predicated people either not knowing what the law is, or not caring.

I had a discussion with a serious anarchist once, he was one of the few I consider ever worth encountering, since his philosophy was, at least in theory based on devout non-violence, and he was at least attempting to be sincere.

Even then he couldn't advocate his theory of "non-aggression" without engaging in aggression himself, and was forced to admit he was content partaking in government since he wasn't willing to risk fear of death if he found a way to "opt-out" of government as much as possible, so I consider such discussion moot at this point, nor would he acknowledge that strict "non-aggression" is physically impossible (at most, one could minimize it but not eliminate it), and was only concerned with certain types or certain venues of aggression (e.x. "taxation is theft"), not with aggression or worldviews which promote aggression as they actually exist in a myriad of contexts in day to day life, and that some degree of "aggression" is and would always be necessary to oppose those types of worldviews from infiltrating the rest of society, as he himself was doing by engaging in aggression to promote his view of "non-aggression", not willing to admit either it's futility or its impossibility, nor willing to acknowledge the existence of different forms of government, preferring instead to dishonestly equate all governments with "totalitarian", "socialism", and so forth - despite America's system of government, in fact, not being totalitarian or tyrannical (it's a system of checks and balances with a Constitution which limits government actions - not an absolute monarchy, or government in which a leader or party has unrestricted power).

I subscribe to this version of rightful liberty:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[rightwinger]

There is nothing that difficult about General Welfare

Congress does what is in the General Welfare of the United States.......it’s best interests

That may be infrastructure, education, public safety and even taking care of those who are struggling

 

[BrokeLoser]

There is nothing that difficult about General Welfare

Congress does what is in the General Welfare of the United States.......it’s best interests

That may be infrastructure, education, public safety and even taking care of those who are struggling

You're right...this is simple as ****
We know what congress does...we also know they are not empowered to do what they do with regard to spending for "GENERAL WELFARE". They have been grossly negligent...The American public in GENERAL does not benefit by paying ShaQuita to smoke weed or by paying Guadalupe to expand her litter....simple shit that you and your circle talking buddy Questioner can't wrap your heads around.

 

[danielpalos]

There is nothing that difficult about General Welfare

Congress does what is in the General Welfare of the United States.......it’s best interests

That may be infrastructure, education, public safety and even taking care of those who are struggling

You're right...this is simple as ****
We know what congress does...we also know they are not empowered to do what they do with regard to spending for "GENERAL WELFARE". They have been grossly negligent...The American public in GENERAL does not benefit by paying ShaQuita to smoke weed or by paying Guadalupe to expand her litter....simple shit that you and your circle talking buddy Questioner can't wrap your heads around.

it isn't welfare spending that is the problem, it is warfare spending that is the problem.

 

[g5000]

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.

Yeah, I understand why your limited intellect would not want to be confused with legal stuff when talking about the Constitution.

Makes sense.