In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
How do you interpret the General Welfare Clause
Gotteskrieger
Member Posts: 3,170 ✭✭
of the U.S. Constitution?
Comments
Not specifically.
"3. Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, "nice" meant "precise"], we must learn what the word, "welfare", meant when the Constitution was ratified. "Welfare", as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:
Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil govern-ment (Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).
But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: "Public relief - on welfare. Dependent on public relief". Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings? Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/does-the-general-welfare-clause-of-the-u-s-constitution-authorize-congress-to-force-us-to-buy-health-insurance/
Doesn't "general welfare" refer to the stipends paid to retired high-ranking military officers?
Excellent! Sounds about right to me. [:)] [;)] [^]
Of course there are many folks with opinions . . . and some got more than just one. [:)] [;)] [:D]
Are we talking about the term "general welfare" as it is stated in the Preamble of the Constitution or are we referring to where the term "general welfare" as it is stated in Taxing and Spending Clause?
The term is used in two very different parts of the Constitution.
It also depends on what the definition of "is" is.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
Show me one instance where the Supreme Court referred to the Preamble in deciding a case.
Back to the Tax and Spending Clause...
The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I guess as I read it, the key term is "...common defense and general welfare of the United States ..." To me this is a collective term. The Defense of the United States is clearly a collective term and not an individual right specific to you and me. Taxes are collected and monies spent to defend the nations. Nothing in the Constitution refers to spending money to defend MY specific property.
Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret taxing and spending for the "General Welfare of the United States" to also be a collective responsibility of CONGRESS and not a person specific responsibility
To put plainly and bluntly, it is not the responsibility of the United States Congress to spend money to wipe the ars of Captplaid ...or anyone else. ...no nanny state.
It is Congresses responsibility to spend money prudently to maintain a proper federal government.
So now that I have explained who is the general welfare for, next the question is "What exactly is "general welfare". Well, I'd say "general welfare" is not excessive or exuberant spending. Our FOunding Fathers did not state Congress shall tax and spend to provide an exuberant welfare of the Untied States. In my opinion, "general" would me synonymous with "modest", "basic" or "conservative" or perhaps even "frugal".
Now others, such as Mrs. Plaid, sees the term "general" as "collective". To this I would ask how is "common" as in "common defense" different than "general" as in "general welfare"?
Why didn't the Founding Fathers use the term "common defense and welfare of the United States" or even "general defense and welfare..."?
The Founding Father's used to separate adjectives with "common" and "general". I do not believe this was merely for rhetoric. A "general defense" would be too limiting and too frugal.
A "common welfare" would be too socialized. A communist nation attempts to provide a common welfare to everyone. We are not a common nation. We are not a communist nation.
Therefore, I contend a "general welfare" is specific to the basic welfare it takes to run and operate a government.
I hope this adequately explains my position on the General Welfare Clause as I see it at 9:00 a.m. on January 26, 2012.
Notice it says all taxes collected shall be uniform across the nation.
It does not state all spending for the common defense and general welfare of the United States shall be uniform across the nation.
The government can tax everyone the same and spend it on whoever and wherever it sees necessary.
Both the Preamble and the Purpose Statement of Article 1 Section 8 refer to the 'common defense' and the 'general welfare'. These are overall purpose statements.
The Constitution itself with the government structure, powers, duties and delegations it established, is the mechanism to provide for the 'general welfare', or the 'overall health' of the republic which is the ability of its people and states to go about their own business in relative prosperity (if they choose or can achieve it) and peace.
In Article 1 section 8, the 'general welfare' is again to be nurtured and fostered by the eighteen specific and enumerated powers and duties of the Congress.
It is clear that no provision for 'welfare' type programs for certain individuals at the expense of others was ever authorized or intended.
Such programs and desires are merely constructs arrived at via twisting and dare I say 'interpreting' specific verbiage so as to squeeze some meaning that was never there from simple words laid out in a simple and easy to discern context.
Military defense against foreign enemies?
or the creation of a zillion Fed-cop entities "for the safety of the children"