PDA

View Full Version : The "General Welfare Clause"



Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 09:13 AM
At the risk of three-peating myself, I thought this subject was worthy of it's own thread.

It is absolutely critical to the freedom of this country that this "clause" be put into context and the notion that it justifies the multitude of social programs MUST be absolutely destroyed.



Liberals have used this as a justification for Health Care, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and all sorts of unconstitutional laws and programs, and if allowed to stand, there is literally NOTHING the federal government cannot do - and our very liberty is in peril.

This is a take off from a comment that Night Owl made in another thread.


This is what the primary author of the Constitution had to say on using the General Welfare "clause" in the way the liberals are using it.

From Federalist #41 - where Madison addresses this exact topic:




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.

Pretty much what the left and you are arguing today.


No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

He proclaimed such things as dispicable and anyone STOOPING so low proved just how desperate those who argue against the Constitution by implying the "general welfare" wording in such a way were.

James Madison continues:


A power to de- stroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare. ‘’But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?


He is stating that ALL of the powers of congress are specifically listed, and to include General welfare as such a power would be the power to destroy the press, trial by jury etc., would literally give the government any power it desired - all they had to do was to couch it in the terms "for the general welfare".

But because of the way it is written, Madison argued, no well meaning person would argue that the Constitution could be interpreted that way
He said: (picking up part of the earlier quote for clarity)


But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions
be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.


The author of the Constitution itself would beg to differ.


Here is Federalist #41 in it's entirety. The parts I excerpted begin on page 185 (left column)

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1c1ALWOidQHZGYyMjM2NzEtOTFhNi00MGJkL Tg2ZjAtMTE1YzRmNWJlODBl&hl=en&pli=1

Gingersnap
12-14-2010, 09:50 AM
Bumping for the General Welfare.

NJCardFan
12-14-2010, 11:15 AM
There is a big difference in the general welfare of the nation as a whole(keeping us safe) and providing for the basic needs of able bodied people. This is the problem I have with nuts like night owl, wee wee, and any other leftist idiot. They believe it is right to seize from one person who worked to earn what they have and just hand it over to an able bodied person who did nothing to earn what they get.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 06:34 PM
There is a big difference in the general welfare of the nation as a whole(keeping us safe) and providing for the basic needs of able bodied people. This is the problem I have with nuts like night owl, wee wee, and any other leftist idiot. They believe it is right to seize from one person who worked to earn what they have and just hand it over to an able bodied person who did nothing to earn what they get.

Yes, and the use the general welfare "clause" to justify it. This line of thought is a DIRE threat to our liberty.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 12:05 AM
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.The thing that kills me is that they are ready and willing to give away the blessings of liberty for the false hope of PROVIDING for the general welfare. :rolleyes:

AmPat
12-15-2010, 10:15 AM
I heard a good analogy today on the Mike Gallagher show.
If the administration is allowed to force us to buy insurance for a gov't service under the commerce clause, then a case could be made to force Americans to buy guns under the same for the purpose of national defense against terrorism.

Madisonian
12-15-2010, 12:24 PM
I heard a good analogy today on the Mike Gallagher show.
If the administration is allowed to force us to buy insurance for a gov't service under the commerce clause, then a case could be made to force Americans to buy guns under the same for the purpose of national defense against terrorism.

Or better yet force us to buy a Chevy or Chrysler to keep them in business to keep the American people from completely losing its ass?

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 12:25 PM
Or better yet force us to buy a Chevy or Chrysler to keep them in business to keep the American people from completely losing its ass?

The American people? Try the UAW.

Madisonian
12-15-2010, 12:33 PM
The American people? Try the UAW.

I was referring to our forced "investment" into GM and Chrysler, but yes that was union payback as well. How would the Dims get millions of direct UAW funding and as much or more in unpaid UAW endorsements without kissing the ring of organized "labor"?

Constitutionally Speaking
12-15-2010, 10:52 PM
It is the same justification they are using to attack fast food, guns,smokers, force seat belt usage, etc.


This is a very slippery slope that, if allowed to stand as is, will end up in tyranny - REAL tyranny.

Forcing you to buy government health care is just the start.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 11:00 PM
It is the same justification they are using to attack fast food, guns,smokers, force seat belt usage, etc.


This is a very slippery slope that, if allowed to stand as is, will end up in tyranny - REAL tyranny.

Forcing you to buy government health care is just the start.

I'll cancel my insurance and go to jail to prove the point.

Rockntractor
12-15-2010, 11:02 PM
I'll cancel my insurance and go to jail to prove the point.

If you have people that rely on you for sustenance how can you do that.

m00
12-15-2010, 11:14 PM
I'll cancel my insurance and go to jail to prove the point.

Just wait till they charge you for jail too.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 11:29 PM
If you have people that rely on you for sustenance how can you do that.

If enough of us do it - none of us would go to jail.

m00
12-15-2010, 11:31 PM
If enough of us do it - none of us would go to jail.

Well, if enough of us did it we would all be on "probation" or "parole" rather than physically in jail... and probably not able to vote, because "not buying insurance" would be felony.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 11:32 PM
Well, if enough of us did it we would all be on "probation" or "parole" rather than physically in jail... and probably not able to vote, because "not buying insurance" would be felony.

Like that stops democrats from voting. :rolleyes:

Madisonian
12-16-2010, 07:50 AM
If enough of us do it - none of us would go to jail.

If enough people increased their w4 withholding statements and refused to file income tax statements you could say the same thing.
Problem is too many sheep that will go along with anything the government wants and all that does is make imprisoned (or dead) martyrs of those that take a stand.

NJCardFan
12-16-2010, 01:48 PM
Just wait till they charge you for jail too.

Some jails already charge you.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-16-2010, 09:24 PM
I was hoping Night Owl would join in and answer this challenge to his ridiculous belief on this topic.

Rockntractor
12-16-2010, 09:36 PM
I was hoping Night Owl would join in and answer this challenge to his ridiculous belief on this topic.

He was lurking an hour ago, maybe we can bait him in with some rats and mice.:confused:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/rats-and-baby-pest-cemetery.jpg
There's a baby too in case he is really hungry!