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

[Supposn]

Bootney Lee Farnsworth, it’s your opinion that FDR is the only U.S. president that disagreed with or tried to politically affect the U.S. Supreme court’s opinions or political leanings? You believe the Trump administration is appointing only judges that that have no political preferences? Should we believe or trust in the judgement of any judicial candidate that claims to hold no controversial opinions?

Franklin Roosevelt was hated by those on the extreme right that considered him to be "a traitor to his class". With good reason, he was hated by those on the left. Were it not for his presidency, USA today would be as far or further left to the economy of any European nation. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[rightwinger]

If we could imagine that those who established the U.S. government were intelligent, educated people, we would be able to reason that they understood the language they were using. They used specific words here and non-specific words there, depending upon how they saw how things might evolve/develop. "Promote" and "general" and "welfare" are terms quite open to various views. Unless they were short sighted, blind or stupid, they fully understood this.

And, bingo.

The paranoids want to quibble over individual definitions of words. It's easier than doing the heavy lifting of changing hearts and minds, a struggle they are clearly losing.
.

To be fair, there was never any quibbling over words and definitions to the current extent until FDR sat in the white house long enough to own the SCOTUS.

Nobody seriously questioned the intent of "general welfare" for over 150 years, until 8 of the 9 SCOTUS justices were appointed by a self-described socialist.

Unless and until everyone recognizes that the federal government is intended to have a limited scope of power, we will continue to have these arguments.

.

We have had a Conservative SCOTUS for over 50 years

Why haven’t they changed the interpretation of General Welfare?

 

[rightwinger]

You know what legal bearing The Federalist Papers have?
None

WRONG, bitch.

When the constitution is or seems ambiguous, the proper course of action for interpretation is to look at legislative intent. The Courts have and do look to the Federalist Papers along with debate records to determine legislative intent.

You are a know-nothing pile of donkey shit.

.

They understood the power of words. If they intended those sentiments to be the law.......they would be included in the Constitution

Right. If they had intended to Federal Government to take money from one guy to give to another, they would have included it.

And when they said SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, they meant it.

They did not. So fuck you.

.

There is a Constitutional amendment authorizing income taxes.

 

[BluesLegend]

The liberal world view looks a LOT like the monarchy oppression the founders fought a revolutionary war to escape.

 

[Supposn]

Our United States federal government or our states could, (with extraordinary procedures), modify our constitution. Our federal government could pass and enact bills to constitutionally add, or reduce, or modify our federal statutes and regulations.

Regardless of all other opinions, it’s the judges of our federal courts, and ultimately of our federal Supreme Court that finally determine what’s unconstitutional.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Not what the left says it means.

Otherwise there would be no need for a constitution that is supposed to limit the government.

They just say (like the left does today) it falls under general welfare.

My ass.

 

[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.

Not what the left says it means.

Otherwise there would be no need for a constitution that is supposed to limit the government.

They just say (like the left does today) it falls under general welfare.

My ass.

They provide general welfare as a catch all for.....

Do what is best for the country.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Not what the left says it means.

Otherwise there would be no need for a constitution that is supposed to limit the government.

They just say (like the left does today) it falls under general welfare.

My ass.

They provide general welfare as a catch all for.....

Do what is best for the country.

They did not and Madison was quite clear on that point.

The general welfare was per the clearly delineated duties they were to perform.

Nothing else.

Read Federalist 45. And spare me the "That does not matter" comment.

Madison was quite clear on this point.

 

[BrokeLoser]

They provide general welfare as a catch all for.....

Mexico’s citizens?
See, you Libtardos kind of lost all credibility when you told us our framers intended for our politicians to steal from good productive Americans to pay Mexico’s human trash to fuck our nation up...to pillage, maime, rape and murder our people. You are not to be trusted on this subject matter as you are clearly not looking out for the best interests of Americans...you are no authority.

 

[BrokeLoser]

toobfreak did you contribute to this thread?

 

[initforme]

When the economy ules are not written by the elitist wealthy folk let us know.

 

[initforme]

Let's quit pretending 40 thousand dollars per year is a good salary. It's zippo...nothing. But some will say overpaid. Moronic bad people.

 

[Polishprince]

Let's quit pretending 40 thousand dollars per year is a good salary. It's zippo...nothing. But some will say overpaid. Moronic bad people.

Actually, there are lot of people in this country that are pleased with 40k a year. That's all my mum earns and she really doesn't have any financial type problems at all. Of course, she also get Social Security checks as an old timer.

But 40k isn't that bad at all in much of the country, and if the economy goes into a long term dumper situation, it isn't going to be considered that bad at all.

 

[initforme]

And that's the problem. For forty grand all an emoyer should expect is for one to show up. As far as our founding fathers I say any....meh

 

[bripat9643]

Bootney Lee Farnsworth, it’s your opinion that FDR is the only U.S. president that disagreed with or tried to politically affect the U.S. Supreme court’s opinions or political leanings? You believe the Trump administration is appointing only judges that that have no political preferences? Should we believe or trust in the judgement of any judicial candidate that claims to hold no controversial opinions?

Franklin Roosevelt was hated by those on the extreme right that considered him to be "a traitor to his class". With good reason, he was hated by those on the left. Were it not for his presidency, USA today would be as far or further left to the economy of any European nation. Respectfully, Supposn

What a load. You are thuroughly brainwashed. You brain is marinated in leftists propaganda.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Bootney Lee Farnsworth, it’s your opinion that FDR is the only U.S. president that disagreed with or tried to politically affect the U.S. Supreme court’s opinions or political leanings? You believe the Trump administration is appointing only judges that that have no political preferences?

Well, the ones he appointed seem to prefer the Constitution, and that is an acceptable preference.

 

[initforme]

The founding fathers would look at wages today and agree that the average worker is getting the screws put to him in the worst way. Things are so badly awry.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Au contraire, today's media would dress the Founders as rich, over-educated shitheads, and the Founders would scratch their heads wondering what use there is in having the unproductive of American society free to vote increases in their unheard-of welfare income.

 

[BrokeLoser]

When the economy ules are not written by the elitist wealthy folk let us know.

Let's quit pretending 40 thousand dollars per year is a good salary. It's zippo...nothing. But some will say overpaid. Moronic bad people.

And that's the problem. For forty grand all an emoyer should expect is for one to show up. As far as our founding fathers I say any....meh

The founding fathers would look at wages today and agree that the average worker is getting the screws put to him in the worst way. Things are so badly awry.

Do you find it off that those whom complain the most about low wages are the same folks begging for wetbacks to invade and rob American taxpayers?
Weird huh?

 

[Lakhota]

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

To provide red Republican states with more welfare than they pay in federal taxes.