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

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,878
Reaction score
3,410
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.
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,598
Reaction score
1,983
Points
1,940
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

Plutonium Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
1,936
Reaction score
1,922
Points
1,908
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.
 
Last edited:

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,598
Reaction score
1,983
Points
1,940
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.
 

Hidden

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
2,060
Reaction score
887
Points
163
Location
Texas
They actually said "General warfare" with heavy British accents (which they all had).
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,878
Reaction score
3,410
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.
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,878
Reaction score
3,410
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.
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,878
Reaction score
3,410
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.
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.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
48,494
Reaction score
10,572
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina

Jim H - VA USA

Plutonium Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
1,936
Reaction score
1,922
Points
1,908
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

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
221,617
Reaction score
47,482
Points
2,190
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
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top