Why don't you tell us what you *think* they meant, then? I'm very curious. If the framers didn't have in mind the welfare of the people, why would they include the phrase in the Preamble in the first place? Why would they even begin "We The People..."?? If their intent was purely security and defense, the Constitution would have resembled the Patriot Act.
Dumbo
I included the link with the explanation and the definition of what was meant by the term general welfare
Too lazy to click??
The USSC has never been able to clearly define the words in the Preamble as a legal contest, so YOUR interpretation (or some link thereto) is moot.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Preamble
If the Justices on the Supreme court are unable to clearly define the words in the Preamble, then they should be impeached immediatley. The words in the Preamble set the tone and foundation for all the Constitution, and the founders wrote volumes on what they intended by the words they put into th Constitution.
As for the General Welfare, a clear understanding of THAT would fix 90% of the rest of the mess in which Congress has mired us:
“{James} Madison repeatedly argued that the powers to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Jefferson.” — The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.93
The 1828 Webster’s dictionary lists two definitions for welfare: one to be applied to persons, and one to states (political bodies). As the Constitution was written to list the government’s powers and restrictions, the definition for states must be used, which reads: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.
“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798
And the more liberal Alexander Hamilton was no less committed to Congress not having authority to dispense ‘charity’: Hamilton uncategorically stated that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless:
"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78
Hamilton's intent was clear: since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore—unconstitutional.
In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?
General Welfare, as intended in the Constitution, was that defined in the Declaration of Independence or to enable all citizens to be able to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. General welfare is that which has capacity to benefit all citizens equally and without prejudice, and does not target any group or individual for special privileges or consideration which the Founders saw as explicitly prohibited by the Constitution at the Federal level.
Why? Because they saw it as immoral for powers to seize property of one citizen for the benefit of another--such was the very foundational basis upon which those original patriots structured a new Republic of the people. There is no way to dispense government charity without it becoming a corrupting influence on both those in government and the recipients of the charity. And there is no freedom if the government can take what you have and give it to whomever they please.
