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

[jc456]

Yup and it's a fact.

It is, preamble is not the constitution. So stop quoting it as

 

[dblack]

It is, preamble is not the constitution. So stop quoting it as

This, to me, has always been a very clear refutation of the liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause. By the author of the damned thing:

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

 

[otto105]

It is, preamble is not the constitution. So stop quoting it as

It explains the intent and meaning of the constitution.

So, stop trying to ignore it.

 

[dblack]

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

This drips with irony, because Madison was addressing critics of the Constitution, who were worried that the general welfare clause might be taken as an implied power to broadly legislate and spend in the name of the general welfare. Madison was mocking their concern - "No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, ..." ie "you're really reaching on this one, fellas".

But, of course, the Court has allowed exactly what the critics feared. The critics were right. Madison was wrong. He should have amended the text to clarify the meaning and reject the "broad implied power" interpretation outright. Instead, he maintained the awkward phrasing, ripe for misinterpretation.

 

[jc456]

Goes to intention of the dead founding fathers. Something you fuckups are always trying to do.

Preamble, isn’t part of the constitutional directive, it’s a summary of the intent you fking loser

 

[otto105]

The Founders were to a man classical liberals/libertarian (little L). As such they believed it not the role of the central government to provide any form of welfare, or if such was provided it should be extremely temporary and limited.

The "General Welfare" was the 'common good' or what increased opportunity, options, choice, liberty for every citizen. Therefore post roads; a common currency; a common language; certain laws, rules, regulations that prevented the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other; making profitable trade agreements; providing general security against enemies within and without. . . all this contributed to the common good and benefitted all in some way while not advantaging any person or demographic over any others.

How did colored people fair under this not advantaging thing?

 

[jc456]

It explains the intent and meaning of the constitution.

So, stop trying to ignore it.

It isn’t a n amendment and has zero standing

 

[otto105]

It isn’t a n amendment and has zero standing

Hilarious fuckup.

 

[jc456]

Hilarious fuckup.

You really are

 

[jc456]

How did colored people fair under this not advantaging thing?

Racist

 

[eagle1462010]

I included dead because you constitutional republic maga fuckups are alway trying to find the intention from them. Then when they put it in writing you deny it.

You are the one fucking up their meaning and intent

 

[Richard-H]

Only very ignorant folks imagine that the preamble has the force of law.

Instead, it is just a general statement about the specifics that follow in the actual articles of the Constitution.

I know that SCOTUS determined that the Preamble did not count as law, but that is just one of many mistakes SCOTUS has made since 1884.

The Preamble is the most important part of the Constitution. It states the very reason & purpose for the existence of the Government.

The rest of the Constitution is just a structural description of how the Government achieves the goals of the preamble.

 

[jc456]

I know that SCOTUS determined that the Preamble did not count as law, but that is just one of many mistakes SCOTUS has made since 1884.

wow. the number one thing the SCOTUS is for you question. amazing.

 

[BackAgain]

I know that SCOTUS determined that the Preamble did not count as law, but that is just one of many mistakes SCOTUS has made since 1884.

The Preamble is the most important part of the Constitution. It states the very reason & purpose for the existence of the Government.

Nah. They were right. You are flatly wrong. You’re ignorant.

The rest of the Constitution is just a structural description of how the Government achieves the goals of the preamble.

Nope.

There is apparently nothing you comprehend about the Constitution.

 

[Richard-H]

Nah. They were right. You are flatly wrong. You’re ignorant.

Nope.

There is apparently nothing you comprehend about the Constitution.

I can understand A. 14 Sec. 3.

The only thing you comprehend is the 2nd amendment - and your wrong about that!

 

[Richard-H]

wow. the number one thing the SCOTUS is for you question. amazing.

O.K., take a deep breath and try to post a comprehensible sentence.

Sorry -

com·pre·hen·si·ble
/ˌkämprəˈhensəb(ə)l/
adjective
able to be understood; intelligible.
"clear and comprehensible English"

 

[BackAgain]

I can understand A. 14 Sec. 3.

The only thing you comprehend is the 2nd amendment - and your wrong about that!

You don’t have the first clue about what you’re talking about.

 

[jc456]

O.K., take a deep breath and try to post a comprehensible sentence.

Sorry -

com·pre·hen·si·ble
/ˌkämprəˈhensəb(ə)l/
adjective
able to be understood; intelligible.
"clear and comprehensible English"

I know you have no idea what SCOTUS is for! Why do you feel the need to let everyone know it?

 

[jc456]

I can understand A. 14 Sec. 3.

The only thing you comprehend is the 2nd amendment - and your wrong about that!

again, you still demonstrating the lack of knowledge of the constitution. amazing.

 

[otto105]

You are the one fucking up their meaning and intent

Nope, you're the one denying the Preamble to the Constitution.