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

[danielpalos]

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.

yes, it is a general clause not a common clause. it must be able to provide for any given contingency in a manner that provides for the general welfare.

 

[San Souci]

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.

Well ,there is sure NOTHING about HealthCare in the Constitution. Or baby murder.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

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.

You seem to have very poor reading comprehension skills.

Your post is so consistent with what I posted, but the OP requested that "smart" people like yourself not post your scholarly google search results. He wanted to hear opinions, so I posted mine.

 

[San Souci]

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.

yes, it is a general clause not a common clause. it must be able to provide for any given contingency in a manner that provides for the general welfare.

Not parasitism. Or taking from the worthy and giving it to the worthless.

 

[d0gbreath]

They actually said "General warfare" with heavy British accents (which they all had).

 

[initforme]

Get rid of Medicare and social security and watch the chaos the likes a nation has never seen. Two of the greatest things this nation has ever done.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Well ,there is sure NOTHING about HealthCare in the Constitution. Or baby murder.

No general warfare clause, nor any common offense clause, nor any air force clause nor any space force clause.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You seem to have very poor reading comprehension skills. That is so consistent with what I posted, but the OP requested that "smart" people like yourself not post your scholarly google search results. He wanted to hear opinions, so I posted mine.

The intellectual part is that the preamble was actually written onto our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. That is the mission statement for our form of federal Government.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

yes, it is a general clause not a common clause. it must be able to provide for any given contingency in a manner that provides for the general welfare.

Not parasitism. Or taking from the worthy and giving it to the worthless.

Our federal Constitution is also about equality.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Get rid of Medicare and social security and watch the chaos the likes a nation has never seen. Two of the greatest things this nation has ever done.

Promoting the general welfare to keep to our mission statement?

 

[Leo123]

Only since the civil rights acts.

Yeah so?

 

[Leo123]

Our federal Constitution is also about equality.

Equality of opportunity not outcome.

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution is also about equality.

Equality of opportunity not outcome.

You mean like equal protection of the laws?

 

[Leo123]

You mean like equal protection of the laws?

No I said equality of opportunity not outcome.

 

[rightwinger]

Our federal Constitution is also about equality.

Equality of opportunity not outcome.

Nobody demands equality of outcome
Conservative propaganda

People want government to enforce a level playing field

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Our federal Constitution is also about equality.

Equality of opportunity not outcome.

Nobody demands equality of outcome
Conservative propaganda

People want government to enforce a level playing field

a level playing field provides equality of outcome.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Our federal Constitution is also about equality.

Equality of opportunity not outcome.

Nobody demands equality of outcome
Conservative propaganda

People want government to enforce a level playing field

You apparently have not followed the recent focus on "equity" versus "equality."

It is all over the news these days, and the Biden Admin supports initiatives to increase "equity," which I believe is racist and unconstitutional, based upon the 14th Amendment Section 1 and Title Vi of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

CRA 64, Title VI:

"SEC. 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Regards,
Jim

 

[rightwinger]

Our federal Constitution is also about equality.

Equality of opportunity not outcome.

Nobody demands equality of outcome
Conservative propaganda

People want government to enforce a level playing field

a level playing field provides equality of outcome.

No it doesn’t.
But it ensures the game is played fairly. If the refs (govt) are favoring one team, you are not going to have the same opportunity

 

[rightwinger]

You apparently have not followed the recent focus on "equity" versus "equality."

 

[Orangecat]

yes, it is a general clause not a common clause.

STFU. You can't even explain the difference.