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

[dblack]

You keep saying that..

But it is not supported by Congress, the Courts or the people
Don’t see any states suing for more power

Amend the constitution or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

.

But that's tooooo hard!!! Majority rules!!!! Let's just take a vote and to hell with the minority! Might makes right.

 

[rightwinger]

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.

General does not mean specific. The fed gov is charged with promoting an environment that permits the general welfare to function as it applies to the whole country, not as an ATM for illegally protected groups or individuals.

General means general
Congress is tasked to do what is best for the people.
Doesn’t mean everyone has to benefit equally......just the nation as a whole benefits

Congress is tasked to do what is best for the Union WITHIN its enumerated powers. A sweeping interpretation of General Welfare IGNORES the enumeration of powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

.

You keep saying that..

But it is not supported by Congress, the Courts or the people
Don’t see any states suing for more power

Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it should continue.

Of course it is right

Let Congress do its job

 

[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.

"General Welfare" means anything Dimsocialists want but are too lazy or stupid to get for themselves. So, pretty much anything.

If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong

 

[rightwinger]

You keep saying that..

But it is not supported by Congress, the Courts or the people
Don’t see any states suing for more power

Amend the constitution or SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

.

Doesn’t seem necessary
Constitution is working just fine as it is......You are the one having a problem with it

 

[TNHarley]

General vs. Specific

General: Military Defense

Specific: Taking money from Barney Fife and using it buy Aunt Bee a firearm.


General: Interstate Highway System
(also common defense as military needs roads to respond to threats)

Specific: Taking money from Barney Fife and using it buy Aunt Bee a car.

.

"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".

Congress has the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare, but the enumerated powers limit the federal government’s spending power to specific objects listed in Article I, Section 8.

Exactly.

.

On the last day of his administration, Madison vetoed "infrastructure bill" that called for federal construction of various roads, bridges, and canals throughout the country.

In his Letter to Congress he said: "“The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”

James Madison (one of my favorite founders) was right to question spending on roads, bridges, etc, and at the time, he would have been right in his decision, but wrong if that decision was made today. Roads are necessary for common defense (an enumerated power). A federal highway system supports national defense (getting troops and equipment to the battlefield). Surely, you cannot deny that.

.

Roads benefit the general welfare of the people

To provide general welfare, it must be within the enumerated powers.
You statists want it to mean unlimited powers.
But that is because you are stupid and weak.

 

[wamose]

They meant that everyone should be as smart as they can be, as cool as they can be, as focused as they can be and as helpful to their brothers and sisters as they can be. So stay home, be smart, be sanitary and help whoever you can.

 

[rightwinger]

"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".

Congress has the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare, but the enumerated powers limit the federal government’s spending power to specific objects listed in Article I, Section 8.

Exactly.

.

On the last day of his administration, Madison vetoed "infrastructure bill" that called for federal construction of various roads, bridges, and canals throughout the country.

In his Letter to Congress he said: "“The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”

James Madison (one of my favorite founders) was right to question spending on roads, bridges, etc, and at the time, he would have been right in his decision, but wrong if that decision was made today. Roads are necessary for common defense (an enumerated power). A federal highway system supports national defense (getting troops and equipment to the battlefield). Surely, you cannot deny that.

.

Roads benefit the general welfare of the people

To provide general welfare, it must be within the enumerated powers.
You statists want it to mean unlimited powers.
But that is because you are stupid and weak.

LOL
It has NEVER meant that

 

[dblack]

General does not mean specific. The fed gov is charged with promoting an environment that permits the general welfare to function as it applies to the whole country, not as an ATM for illegally protected groups or individuals.

General means general
Congress is tasked to do what is best for the people.
Doesn’t mean everyone has to benefit equally......just the nation as a whole benefits

Congress is tasked to do what is best for the Union WITHIN its enumerated powers. A sweeping interpretation of General Welfare IGNORES the enumeration of powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

.

You keep saying that..

But it is not supported by Congress, the Courts or the people
Don’t see any states suing for more power

Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it should continue.

Of course it is right

Let Congress do its job

NO. Not if you're defining their job outside Constitutional limits. In that case, I have an obligation to prevent Congress from doing "its job".

 

[sparky]

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

they were actually stuttering

the quote was 'general warfare'

~S~

 

[Nostra]

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.

"General Welfare" means anything Dimsocialists want but are too lazy or stupid to get for themselves. So, pretty much anything.

If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong

Which is why I am always right............you never agree with me.

 

[rightwinger]

General means general
Congress is tasked to do what is best for the people.
Doesn’t mean everyone has to benefit equally......just the nation as a whole benefits

Congress is tasked to do what is best for the Union WITHIN its enumerated powers. A sweeping interpretation of General Welfare IGNORES the enumeration of powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

.

You keep saying that..

But it is not supported by Congress, the Courts or the people
Don’t see any states suing for more power

Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it should continue.

Of course it is right

Let Congress do its job

NO. Not if you're defining their job outside Constitutional limits. In that case, I have an obligation to prevent Congress from doing "its job".

If you believe Congress is acting outside it’s Constitutional limits.....take them to court

The Constitution allows you to do that

 

[dblack]

Congress is tasked to do what is best for the Union WITHIN its enumerated powers. A sweeping interpretation of General Welfare IGNORES the enumeration of powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

.

You keep saying that..

But it is not supported by Congress, the Courts or the people
Don’t see any states suing for more power

Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it should continue.

Of course it is right

Let Congress do its job

NO. Not if you're defining their job outside Constitutional limits. In that case, I have an obligation to prevent Congress from doing "its job".

If you believe Congress is acting outside it’s Constitutional limits.....take them to court

The Constitution allows you to do that

And if the Court fails (which it has) to hold Congress to its prescribed limits - all bets are off. It no longer has a valid claim of sovereignty, regardless of the what the majority thinks.

 

[rightwinger]

General Welfare tells Congress ......Do your job
Do those things that need doing for the benefit of the people.

Take your ignorant ass back to law school.

Jesus.

.

Law School would give you hundreds of years worth of cases showing that your interpretation is wrong

 

[rightwinger]

You keep saying that..

But it is not supported by Congress, the Courts or the people
Don’t see any states suing for more power

Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it should continue.

Of course it is right

Let Congress do its job

NO. Not if you're defining their job outside Constitutional limits. In that case, I have an obligation to prevent Congress from doing "its job".

If you believe Congress is acting outside it’s Constitutional limits.....take them to court

The Constitution allows you to do that

And if the Court fails (which it has) to hold Congress to its prescribed limits - all bets are off. It no longer has a valid claim of sovereignty, regardless of the what the majority thinks.

The Court has been consistent in its interpretation.


The Court does not support you, neither does Congress, the people or the states

 

[dblack]

Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it should continue.

Of course it is right

Let Congress do its job

NO. Not if you're defining their job outside Constitutional limits. In that case, I have an obligation to prevent Congress from doing "its job".

If you believe Congress is acting outside it’s Constitutional limits.....take them to court

The Constitution allows you to do that

And if the Court fails (which it has) to hold Congress to its prescribed limits - all bets are off. It no longer has a valid claim of sovereignty, regardless of the what the majority thinks.

The Court has been consistent in its interpretation.


The Court does not support you, neither does Congress, the people or the states

I know that. Which is why I don't support them. When the government goes rogue, it's no longer valid.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Doesn’t seem necessary
Constitution is working just fine as it is......You are the one having a problem with it

Why not just scrap it all and give Congress full power to do whatever it deems appropriate?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Law School would give you hundreds of years worth of cases showing that your interpretation is wrong

Care to cite a few?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Court has been consistent in its interpretation.

Really? Consistent?


See U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) compared to Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

It took over 50 years to reverse FDR's commie court.

.

 

[TNHarley]

Exactly.

.

On the last day of his administration, Madison vetoed "infrastructure bill" that called for federal construction of various roads, bridges, and canals throughout the country.

In his Letter to Congress he said: "“The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”

James Madison (one of my favorite founders) was right to question spending on roads, bridges, etc, and at the time, he would have been right in his decision, but wrong if that decision was made today. Roads are necessary for common defense (an enumerated power). A federal highway system supports national defense (getting troops and equipment to the battlefield). Surely, you cannot deny that.

.

Roads benefit the general welfare of the people

To provide general welfare, it must be within the enumerated powers.
You statists want it to mean unlimited powers.
But that is because you are stupid and weak.

LOL
It has NEVER meant that

Try, although I know it is extremely hard for you, to consider the logic.
Why would they even make a constitution that constrains the fed gov when they also gave them unlimited powers?
THINK and READ

 

[Alan Stallion]

As definitions change over time, it's good to find something that gives as close as possible original meaning.

Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary comes close and here is what is listed as the definition for "WELFARE"

WEL'FARE, noun [well and fare, a good faring; G.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

on-line source: Websters Dictionary 1828 - American Dictionary of the English Language

*
* screenshot of my copy of Webster's 1828 Dictionary