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

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,465
Reaction score
5,724
Points
1,130
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.
we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Supposn

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
139
Points
85
we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.
(supposn), I think you may have self manipulated.
You see, nobody said the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry shouldn’t be the concern of government...quite the contrary actually, I have said Father Government should be concerned with the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry and not the WELFARE of factions within the citizenry.
BrokeLoser, the federal minimum wage rate, to the extent of its purchasing power, reduces the number and incidences of poverty in the USA. That’s its purpose and justification.

Although the rate more or less only directly affects upon lower wage rate workers and their low wage income families, (i.e. it has little no net affect upon the purchasing powers of higher wage rate workers and higher income families), its affects range from critical for lesser, and substantially more for higher income families within the lowest quarter bracket of family incomes.

Incidences and extent of poverty in the USA, reduce our nation’s aggregate living standards. That’s why I’m among the advocates for the Congressional House’s “Raise the wage” bill.
Respectfully, Supposn
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,878
Reaction score
47,695
Points
2,190
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.
Providing for general welfare of the public is the goal of government. It's specific meaning to the founders, it's meaning to the public today, and it's meaning a hundred years from now will not be the same because the world of the founders, the world of today, and the world of the future will not be same.
Your post wreaks of Leftist spin...”GENERAL WELFARE” in its context will never change. The framers were very clear.
Nobody sane can spin “promote the GENERAL WELFARE” into anything other than its original intent.
They were not very clear
That is why they said General Welfare

They left it up to legislatures elected by We the People to decide what that General Welfare would be
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,878
Reaction score
47,695
Points
2,190
we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.
BrokeLoser, I cannot improve upon Daniel Palos’s succinct response. But I question the cognizance, and/or logic, and/or the decency of anyone’s character, who doesn’t believe population’s general welfare should be of governments’ concerns.

Respectfully, Supposn
I think you may have self manipulated.
You see, nobody said the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry shouldn’t be the concern of government...quite the contrary actually, I have said Father Government should be concerned with the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry and not the WELFARE of factions within the citizenry.
Helping people who need help is in the interest of the General Welfare of all.

Government needs to do what needs doing
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
IMHO, general welfare means everybody. It means you don't benefit one group but not another, whether it's by state, race, religion, gender, or any other discriminator. It does NOT mean equal outcomes.
And, it's not a 'implied spending power'. That's an exploit pushed by people who want power over others.
Especially not any form of implied spending power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
If General Welfare means "just do what is best for the people" the entirety of the Constitution is null and void, because that means the FedGov can do ANYTHING it deems "best for the people"
That is the general idea

Instead of dictating specifically what Government can do, it allows elected Government to do what is best for the people who elected them.

If they don’t, they don’t get elected
The Constitution did not get made to turn us into a high tax socialist state. Running concurrently with it is the loss of unalienable rights. General welfare was coopted for all of the social programs. I exist in this like you. So I do not know what we would be like if we kept our foundation and budgets under control. It is also not the same time period as back then. What is important is the loss of liberty in many ways.
I agree with you that our general welfare clause was not made to be coopted into a socialist state by right wing, alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
If the general welfare meant what the left claims it means then there would have been no need to follow it with specific things Congress could do since the statement general welfare would have covered everything.
The particular clauses are merely examples and qualifications of what was meant by the general welfare so it could not be confused with the general warfare or the common offense.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Some people don’t have children, some old people don’t need medical insurance.
But public education and medical care for old people are best for a society as a whole.
Each member of society doesn’t benefit the same
People have equal opportunity, if they don't avail themselves of that opportunity it's on them.
Only since the civil rights acts.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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 general welfare includes my ability to pursue happiness, support my family, be free from oppression from a totalitarian government, and protect my family from foreign invasion and rampant crime.

I suppose general welfare would also include things like ensuring a relatively peaceful society by establishing law and order, building infrastructure like roads and bridges to allow freedom to travel, providing for national defense, and establishing policies that promote one's ability to secure basic necessities like ample food supply, housing, right to bear arms, and even necessary regulations regarding things that have significant safety and national security concerns.

General welfare certainly does not mean guaranteed free stuff.

It also certainly does not mean things like guaranteed universal income or heavy welfare benefits, which is completely counter-productive long-term with regard to general welfare, as it approaches full-blown Socialism. Just look at Venezuela, which has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, yet its people are starving.

Basically, if you reward undesirable behavior, you get more of it. It's universally true, as is the converse.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
Providing for general welfare of the public is the goal of government. It's specific meaning to the founders, it's meaning to the public today, and it's meaning a hundred years from now will not be the same because the world of the founders, the world of today, and the world of the future will not be same.
I agree to disagree. The general welfare cannot mean the general badfare nor the general malfare.
 
OP
BrokeLoser

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
25,432
Reaction score
9,442
Points
910
Location
MEXIFORNIA
we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.
BrokeLoser, I cannot improve upon Daniel Palos’s succinct response. But I question the cognizance, and/or logic, and/or the decency of anyone’s character, who doesn’t believe population’s general welfare should be of governments’ concerns.

Respectfully, Supposn
I think you may have self manipulated.
You see, nobody said the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry shouldn’t be the concern of government...quite the contrary actually, I have said Father Government should be concerned with the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry and not the WELFARE of factions within the citizenry.
Helping people who need help is in the interest of the General Welfare of all.

Government needs to do what needs doing
Prove it by telling me how I benefit when I'm forced to pay / reward ShaQuita for expanding her already dependent litter?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.
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.

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.
It is not an implied power but the scope of the powers expressed in particular.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Unequal protection of the laws cannot be within the scope of the powers of Congress.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.
BrokeLoser, I cannot improve upon Daniel Palos’s succinct response. But I question the cognizance, and/or logic, and/or the decency of anyone’s character, who doesn’t believe population’s general welfare should be of governments’ concerns.

Respectfully, Supposn
I think you may have self manipulated.
You see, nobody said the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry shouldn’t be the concern of government...quite the contrary actually, I have said Father Government should be concerned with the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry and not the WELFARE of factions within the citizenry.
Helping people who need help is in the interest of the General Welfare of all.

Government needs to do what needs doing
Our alleged war on drugs cannot be said to be within the scope of providing for the general welfare.
 
OP
BrokeLoser

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
25,432
Reaction score
9,442
Points
910
Location
MEXIFORNIA
we should compare and contrast with terms our Founding Fathers did not use; the general warfare or the common offense.
BrokeLoser, I cannot improve upon Daniel Palos’s succinct response. But I question the cognizance, and/or logic, and/or the decency of anyone’s character, who doesn’t believe population’s general welfare should be of governments’ concerns.

Respectfully, Supposn
I think you may have self manipulated.
You see, nobody said the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry shouldn’t be the concern of government...quite the contrary actually, I have said Father Government should be concerned with the GENERAL WELFARE of the citizenry and not the WELFARE of factions within the citizenry.
Helping people who need help is in the interest of the General Welfare of all.

Government needs to do what needs doing
Our alleged war on drugs cannot be said to be within the scope of providing for the general welfare.
There is no such thing, there is no "war on drugs"...that's just weird crazy talk that originated with drug users, criminals and weirdos.
Tell us about the "war" on drunk driving will you?
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
82,570
Reaction score
26,777
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
They were not very clear
That is why they said General Welfare
They left it up to legislatures elected by We the People to decide what that General Welfare would be
That's my assumption.

Unfortunately, they didn't realize at the time that we would ultimately devolve into this tribal sandbox.

They probably should have made it much simpler for us. Don't make us think like this. Little did they know.
 
OP
BrokeLoser

BrokeLoser

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
25,432
Reaction score
9,442
Points
910
Location
MEXIFORNIA
They were not very clear
That is why they said General Welfare
They left it up to legislatures elected by We the People to decide what that General Welfare would be
That's my assumption.

Unfortunately, they didn't realize at the time that we would ultimately devolve into this tribal sandbox.

They probably should have made it much simpler for us. Don't make us think like this. Little did they know.
The keyword is "GENERAL"...it's really not all that complicated unless you want it to be.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
There is no such thing, there is no "war on drugs"...that's just weird crazy talk that originated with drug users, criminals and weirdos.
Tell us about the "war" on drunk driving will you?
This is what I mean by our alleged, War on Drugs:

The war on drugs is a global campaign,[6] led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade in the United States.[7][8][9][10]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

Remember, our general welfare clause in no way implies those powers.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,993
Reaction score
3,434
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
They were not very clear
That is why they said General Welfare
They left it up to legislatures elected by We the People to decide what that General Welfare would be
That's my assumption.

Unfortunately, they didn't realize at the time that we would ultimately devolve into this tribal sandbox.

They probably should have made it much simpler for us. Don't make us think like this. Little did they know.
Only because right wingers are disingenuous and have lousy rhetoric.

This is what our general welfare clause should accomplish:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top