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

[Questioner]

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

The answer is simple, if politically unpopular: kill the welfare state in all its forms. Every form of anti-family degeneracy is enabled by knowing that no matter how badly you fuck up, Uncle Sam will be there to pick up the tab. Once you know it wont, you'll make better life choices and take responsibility for your actions.

The Common Law system is a system of welfare as a whole, as arguably all "government" is - if you were consistent on that angle, then that would be an anarchist argument, or regression to the stone age - since it would be an abolition of government in all of its forms; in practice no one is willing to participate in an anarchy and knows they won't survive, and aren't willing to do it. (The right to tax was always in the Constitution, so anarchist arguments are anti-American by that definition... whatever that means).

So no, in practice this is merely a fixation on specific types of 'welfare' to the exclusion of others which people take for granted... like public roads, even the development of the internet received government funding, so it would be one of the first systems to kill.

 

[JoeMoma]

I've only read about 50-60 posts in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out. Its PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE the general welfare.

just my little $0.02

 

[Ame®icano]

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

The answer is simple, if politically unpopular: kill the welfare state in all its forms. Every form of anti-family degeneracy is enabled by knowing that no matter how badly you fuck up, Uncle Sam will be there to pick up the tab. Once you know it wont, you'll make better life choices and take responsibility for your actions.

The Common Law system is a system of welfare as a whole, as arguably all "government" is - if you were consistent on that angle, then that would be an anarchist argument, or regression to the stone age - since it would be an abolition of government in all of its forms; in practice no one is willing to participate in an anarchy and knows they won't survive, and aren't willing to do it. (The right to tax was always in the Constitution, so anarchist arguments are anti-American by that definition... whatever that means).

So no, in practice this is merely a fixation on specific types of 'welfare' to the exclusion of others which people take for granted... like public roads, even the development of the internet received government funding, so it would be one of the first systems to kill.

I suspected there would be answers like that, so I clarified what exactly I was thinking of.

 

[danielpalos]

General welfare to Founders = protection of property, liberty, and community through law and order. Government getting into economics had nothing to do with it.

the clause is general, not common.

Yep, so is sense...dumbass.

lol, you need more than the inferiority of an ad hominem to convince me or make a valid point.

Comparison and contrast.

Our welfare clause is General not Common. It must cover any contingency and not impede our Commerce Clause.

 

[danielpalos]

The clause is a limitation on the taxation power, nothing more. Arguments to the contrary are just statists trying to wring a more federal power out of the Constitution.

The scope of the powers delegated for taxation?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[MAGAman]

What planet are you on? Nobody takes Keynesian economics or Robert Riech serious.

But he predicted an immediate Depression if Trump was elected.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

Everyone should generally be on welfare

 

[rightwinger]

I've only read about 50-60 posts in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out. Its PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE the general welfare.

just my little $0.02

Per the US Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[danielpalos]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

Everyone should generally be on welfare

Under Capitalism? You "have to be Rich to be worth that protection of the law". Corporate welfare is alive and well for the Richest not the Poorest.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

Everyone should generally be on welfare

Under Capitalism? You "have to be Rich to be worth that protection of the law". Corporate welfare is alive and well for the Richest not the Poorest.

Leftists have no sense of humor

 

[danielpalos]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

Everyone should generally be on welfare

Under Capitalism? You "have to be Rich to be worth that protection of the law". Corporate welfare is alive and well for the Richest not the Poorest.

Leftists have no sense of humor

i sometimes can't afford it under Capitalism.

 

[Ame®icano]

I've only read about 50-60 posts in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out. Its PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE the general welfare.

just my little $0.02

Per the US Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You're ignoring the preamble.

Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare”.

The Bill of Rights has been construed to provide procedural mechanisms for fair adjudication of those rights rather than carving out claims on the government to ensure that individuals actually have any social and economic assets to protect.

That mechanisms are in Article 1. Section 8. that clarify the role of Federal Government.

 

[BrokeLoser]

PLEASE NOTE: This is 100% POLITICAL

As Democrats scream at the sky and claim every one of Trumps policies create division they seem to believe that Americans should be happy and unified in compromising their own quality of life for illegals....in paying illegal aliens to educate themselves here, abuse our healthcare and public services, drop anchor babies in our laps, commit crime against us and destroy our communities, cities and states.
Come on Democrats...there is nothing more divisive than this.

I hate when Trumpers do everything possible to divide this country and then whine about how divisive things have become

Which policies are Republicans pushing that are so divisive?

A wall & DACA for a start...

Solid Majority Still Opposes New Construction on Border Wall

Poll: Nearly 9 in 10 want DACA recipients to stay in US

Sorry DACA not divisive, 9 in 10 don't want what Trump wants...

So here we are again folks...the Left tells us that it is “DIVISIVE” for a President to do the right thing for REAL Americans...to protect the citizens of the U.S. both physically and fiscally from thirdworld subhumans.
It is “DIVISIVE” to unwind a prior presidents personal immigration law.
“Polls”?

 

[dblack]

I've only read about 50-60 posts in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out. Its PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE the general welfare.

just my little $0.02

Per the US Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It's a description of one power (the taxation power) not several. The words after "Excises, ...." are clauses limiting the main sentence. They limit the reasons for which Congress can levy taxes. They site the "common" defense and the "general" welfare to stipulate that these taxes can't just be collected for the benefit of our rulers and their friends.

The conceit of statists is that these clauses represent additional powers. They want us to read it thusly: "Congress shall have the Power to ... provide for the .... general welfare." If you chop up the sentence and rearrange it like that, you can get the meaning they want out of it. But if we allowed that kind of "construction", you could twist the Constitution into anything you want.

 

[Mac-7]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

My opinion is that “general welfare” means government doing those things that individuals cannot do for themselves

We all need aircraft carriers to protect us from bad nations

But it takes a collective effort to build and deploy them

 

[Questioner]

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

The answer is simple, if politically unpopular: kill the welfare state in all its forms. Every form of anti-family degeneracy is enabled by knowing that no matter how badly you fuck up, Uncle Sam will be there to pick up the tab. Once you know it wont, you'll make better life choices and take responsibility for your actions.

The Common Law system is a system of welfare as a whole, as arguably all "government" is - if you were consistent on that angle, then that would be an anarchist argument, or regression to the stone age - since it would be an abolition of government in all of its forms; in practice no one is willing to participate in an anarchy and knows they won't survive, and aren't willing to do it. (The right to tax was always in the Constitution, so anarchist arguments are anti-American by that definition... whatever that means).

So no, in practice this is merely a fixation on specific types of 'welfare' to the exclusion of others which people take for granted... like public roads, even the development of the internet received government funding, so it would be one of the first systems to kill.

I suspected there would be answers like that, so I clarified what exactly I was thinking of.

Your only option would be to opt out of government altogether as much as possible, like the Freegans, or services which have received government funding.

How Freegans Work

You aren't willing to do it, so your content with the welfare you receive. Actions, not words.

This is why I no longer waste time on these silly theories, eventually I would be interested in researching the actual history of government spending from day one up until the present day. Childish responses like yours are just pure emotion.

 

[jc456]

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

you are right... and surprisingly enough even today nobody is saying "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed”

sure they are. where have you been?

 

[Questioner]

If you voted for Trump there’s a good chance you’re a lot like me with regard to why....I voted for him on two policies almost exclusively...First and foremost on how he would deal with illegal Mexicans and the border and second on how he would yank lowlifes off the Democrat induced welfare plantation.
Anyhoo, as we approach the point where welfare reform will be visited I ask for your opinions on EXACTLY what you think our founders meant when they used the phrase “GENERAL WELFARE” in the constitution?

Attention all Smartest Guys In The Room, and legal scholars:
Please spare us the case citations such as the U.S. vs Butler case and the like. I’m interested in YOUR opinions.

Everyone should generally be on welfare

Under Capitalism? You "have to be Rich to be worth that protection of the law". Corporate welfare is alive and well for the Richest not the Poorest.

Everyone under the Common Law system is on welfare, the rest isn't worth commenting on, since it's dishonest and inconsistent.

The reality is that, in practice, government has been taxing and spending on a myriad of causes since its inception, including "rich" (e.x. so-called corporate welfare), "poor" and otherwise.

None of the responses in threads like these ever honestly address the actual history of government spending, they end up just being childish, emotionally-laden responses, such as over "bailouts", "welfare queens", and the like.

No one will actually research the history of government spending and discern what things one would have to actually cut to conform with whatever their idea of government is, because they know that doing so would probably blow all of their arguments and rhetoric to pieces.

That's why I just laugh at these threads at this point in my life, nothing but theory without practice. And no one believes the average person of low morals or character wouldn't simply take whatever they could get with or without regard for angelic notions such as Constitutional originalism.

I say this as a devout practitioner of the "non-aggression" philosophy. Like Marxism, it sounds wonderful in theory, in practice, it's just a dream. Government was designed to prevent the worst in people from dominating others by force and fear, and for good reason.

 

[BrokeLoser]

T

Everyone in America is under a system of "welfare" - that's what the Common Law system is. Anyone who wishes to "abolish" welfare or some inane, feel-good proposal like that would have to start by abolishing the common law system, and I don't see anyone serious about doing it except in childish fantasy, let alone the differences between theory and practice on that one.

Beyond that, I refuse to engage in any "welfare" discussions anymore, given that they are generally false and are merely misinformation or propaganda, based on visceral or emotional reactions, not facts - actually researching the history of government spending from day 1 up unto the present day would be an interesting project though.

It's time to get back to basics and what made us great...When our framers said "general welfare" they certainly didn't mean "pay Mexico's citizens to ruin our nation" or "pay ShaQuita to have babies and smoke more weed"

In practice it's a moot point, government has funded numerous individuals and services since it's inception - including the internet and sciences - people will argue that general welfare didn't include bailing out bankers either. No one is actually willing to research government funding since day one up unto the present day.

Not to mention the difference between state and federal; the "general welfare clause", to the best of my knowledge applied to the federal, not the states.

So as usual, this and other arguments are just childish appeals to emotions, and not worth discussing. Benefit systems don't allow people to buy weed, people who want to smoke weed will do that on their own.

A lot of the originalist arguments I've heard simply aren't sound, nor even correct per originalism (e.x. some have tried to argue for quasi-originalism related to gun control, saying that the founders only originally meant 18th century firearms, but this isn't a sound argument).

The 1st Amendment doesn't give people the right to use 'fighting words on the internet', for example.

Haha...always working your asses off to create complexities, blur and confusion...you love you some semantics.
This shit has never been complicated...All one has to do is look up the definitions for the words “general” and “welfare” and combine the two.
The intent is/was crystal clear...the right to impose taxation on the people, to spend on roadways and infrastructure and the like for the benefit and GENERAL WELFARE of the people...in GENERAL.
There is no fucking way in hell there is someone ignorant enough to believe our founders intended to construct a system that would force the best, most productive Americans to pay wetbacks to infiltrate our republic and to reward ShaQuita with larger payments as she gives birth to more of her filthy same and expands her litter.
Use your fucking head!

 

[rightwinger]

I've only read about 50-60 posts in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out. Its PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE the general welfare.

just my little $0.02

Per the US Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You're ignoring the preamble.

Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare”.

The Bill of Rights has been construed to provide procedural mechanisms for fair adjudication of those rights rather than carving out claims on the government to ensure that individuals actually have any social and economic assets to protect.

That mechanisms are in Article 1. Section 8. that clarify the role of Federal Government.

The Preamble is not the law

The actual Constitution specifies collect taxes to PROVIDE for the defense and General Welfare

The Bill of Rights provides protections for the people, not instructions on how Congress should operate. That is in Article 1