Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1 The "General Welfare Clause" 
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    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=...Bl&hl=en&pli=1
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Bumping for the General Welfare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,532
    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.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    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.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    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.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    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.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,417
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Madisonian View Post
    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.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,417
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    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"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    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 long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •