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

Cut to the chase beggars….
Do you believe “promote the general welfare” means….
”Pay ShaQuita and Guadalupe to make liabilities / babies”?
Does it mean “pay for DaShawn’s weekly sack of chronic”?
Does it mean “provide Humberto with his case of Modelo”?
OR
Does it mean….
Pay for public education, for public safety, for emergency services, for infrastructure, for public transportation, for clean air and water…OR even….for public parks and rec…etc etc
Your lament has no meaning. Contact your House rep.
 
John, these 'constitutional' want to be scholars don't get that their opinions are only that, and that the only real player in 'what' the document means is SCOTUS. Change SCOTUS if one wants the Constitution 'followed' in the way one wants.
 
John, these 'constitutional' want to be scholars don't get that their opinions are only that, and that the only real player in 'what' the document means is SCOTUS. Change SCOTUS if one wants the Constitution 'followed' in the way one wants.
We have the 6-3 Majority now for that. It's the same old "living document" trope that caused the misinterpretation of the Constitution which should be followed "TO THE LETTER" and abuse by the government.
 
Nah, it is a living document, and the majority of the Court determines the decision.

I am sure that the Democrats of Jackson and Van Buren would be horrified on the Court's decision this week to support the EPA's authority in certain areas.
 
Actually it kinda is about the definition of the word GENERAL. There’s really nothing trivial about said definition.
The definition of “WELFARE” is quite clear as well.
Welfare means the well being of We the People
 
John, these 'constitutional' want to be scholars don't get that their opinions are only that, and that the only real player in 'what' the document means is SCOTUS. Change SCOTUS if one wants the Constitution 'followed' in the way one wants.
I find absolutely nothing wrong with an originalist point of view when determining what the Constitution means.

The drafters used language at their time in history to address their audience and their understanding. Not a post modern world view.

Changing the Constitution is possible and there is a process for that. Bypassing that process is not allowed.

Just like we are not a true democracy. We are a republic because Mob Rule is a horrible thing and unstable.
 
I find absolutely nothing wrong with an originalist point of view when determining what the Constitution means.

The drafters used language at their time in history to address their audience and their understanding. Not a post modern world view.

Changing the Constitution is possible and there is a process for that. Bypassing that process is not allowed.

Just like we are not a true democracy. We are a republic because Mob Rule is a horrible thing and unstable.
We are a Republic where the representatives are elected democratically, a democratic Republic
 
So GMC General does advocate permanent far Right one party rule with an all-encompassing central government (Project 2025) just like your hero in Russia today.
 

Forum List

Back
Top