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

So, in your view, there really isn't any limit to what the government has a right to do?

As long as the policies are said to help the general population?

Doesn't seem like a novus ordo seclorum at all, but instead just the old school idea of totalitarian government.

The "age of big government" continues I guess.
Governments job is to do what needs doing as determined by We the People
 
Building a bridge in your neighborhood does nothing to help me. I will never use it

So bridges cant be general welfare

In fact, you can’t name a single thing Government does that helps everyone equally. It can’t be done
Thats why all they are pretty much supposed to do is handle the military, Naturalization and make sure the states arent being bad.
Thank you for waking the fuck up :)
 
"General" means everybody's welfare is improved, like building roads and bridges where everyone benefits. It does not mean some over others, hence it is NOT about gov't social welfare programs that did not exist then. And BTW, the Preamble is only an introduction to the Constitution and not a basis for any laws/legislation. The Preamble’s statements of purpose do not themselves grant powers or confer rights; the substantive provisions in the main body of the Constitution do that.
There are valid counter arguments to your points. Social welfare programs decrease poverty and crime which helps communities and our country as a whole. Knowing the intent of the founding authors of the constitution is an important factor in understanding the powers that are granted. The preamble and several other supporting documents are used in court cases all the time
 
So, in your view, there really isn't any limit to what the government has a right to do?

As long as the policies are said to help the general population?

Doesn't seem like a novus ordo seclorum at all, but instead just the old school idea of totalitarian government.

The "age of big government" continues I guess.
Congress votes its in the interest of the country to kill off everyone 55 and older.
If he had his way, they could do that.
Thats why you should never listen to a federal supremacist. They are the stupidest mother fuckers on the planet.
 
There are valid counter arguments to your points. Social welfare programs decrease poverty and crime which helps communities and our country as a whole. Knowing the intent of the founding authors of the constitution is an important factor in understanding the powers that are granted. The preamble and several other supporting documents are used in court cases all the time
We've poured trillions of dollars into poverty programs since 1965 without moving the needle substantially since 1968.

Crime rates have also risen over the last two years exponentially particularly in blue cities to levels not since since violent crime rates peaked in 97.

That argument doesn't have any foundation.
 
We've poured trillions of dollars into poverty programs since 1965 without moving the needle substantially since 1968.

Crime rates have also risen over the last two years exponentially particularly in blue cities to levels not since since violent crime rates peaked in 97.

That argument doesn't have any foundation.
So you want to end all social programs????
 
There are valid counter arguments to your points. Social welfare programs decrease poverty and crime which helps communities and our country as a whole. Knowing the intent of the founding authors of the constitution is an important factor in understanding the powers that are granted. The preamble and several other supporting documents are used in court cases all the time
The Plenary clause delegates no authority and has no force of law. It's nothing but a statement of purpose.

General welfare is defined explicitly under A1 S8 and social programs are not included.
 
The Plenary clause delegates no authority and has no force of law. It's nothing but a statement of purpose.

General welfare is defined explicitly under A1 S8 and social programs are not included.
That is factually incorrect and no jurist in America believes you
 
We've poured trillions of dollars into poverty programs since 1965 without moving the needle substantially since 1968.

Crime rates have also risen over the last two years exponentially particularly in blue cities to levels not since since violent crime rates peaked in 97.

That argument doesn't have any foundation.
Without moving the needle? Crime rates had a dramatic rise for three decades since the 60s but have been dramatically declining over the past 3 decades. Looks like some needles are moving...

1650998364779.png
 
Without moving the needle? Crime rates had a dramatic rise for three decades since the 60s but have been dramatically declining over the past 3 decades. Looks like some needles are moving...

View attachment 636571
Your chart ends at 2018.

3 strikes and your out and heavy sentences for violent crimes, particularly those associated with drugs putting offenders away for decades is what finally broke the rise in violent crime rates in the 90's, not any social program.

We've of course now undone just about all of the good they did.
 
The Plenary clause delegates no authority and has no force of law. It's nothing but a statement of purpose.

General welfare is defined explicitly under A1 S8 and social programs are not included.
Agreed and statements of purpose are considered when adjudicating constitutional issues... Correct?
 

Forum List

Back
Top