Almost. The terms they didn't use were "specific welfare" and "exclusive defense". The constraint on the taxation power limited it to fundraising for the country as a whole, not just for the benefit of the nobles or the elites.we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.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.
The core fallacy of the current interpretation of the welfare clause is the notion that it's an "implied power" to spend, wily-nilly on anything one might consider "welfare". That's a conceit created by those who sought to radically increase the power of Congress beyond its enumerated powers.