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

[IM2]

If the general welfare meant what the left claims it means then there would have been no need to follow it with specific things Congress could do since the statement general welfare would have covered everything.

Such an interpretation gives the federal government unlimited power, and renders meaningless the reserves of power to states.

This is why we cannot let people like Dan run our nation. He wants to give too much power to government and make us all slaves.

He is a commie.

we have a general government and a general welfare clause; coincidence or conspiracy?

Incorrect. We have a limited government with a very specific role.

The general welfare refers to the health of the Republic, not to any single citizen.

The people are the republic so you are incorrect.

I realize that this is too high a concept for you to grasp, but the limits of power is placed on the Government, but the general welfare clause refers to the Republic as a governing body.

And I realize that this is too high a concept for you to grasp, but WE are the government. And our general well being is vital to the ability to continue this union.

 

[dblack]

And I realize that this is too high a concept for you to grasp, but WE are the government. And our general well being is vital to the ability to continue this union.

No, "we" aren't the government, and the government isn't us. Government doesn't equal society. It is a tool of society. It is our servant. But it is not "we". Even in a perfectly democratic setting, government only represents the interests of the majority. And it operates by forcing their will on everyone else.

 

[danielpalos]

Better solutions at lower cost!

 

[IM2]

And I realize that this is too high a concept for you to grasp, but WE are the government. And our general well being is vital to the ability to continue this union.

No, "we" aren't the government, and the government isn't us. Government doesn't equal society. It is a tool of society. It is our servant. But it is not "we". Even in a perfectly democratic setting, government only represents the interests of the majority. And it operates by forcing their will on everyone else.

We will just disagree about this. We elect those who serve us and they answer to us. Thus, we are the government. The minority can force changes. That's what happened during civil rights. And it tends to happen more profoundly at local and state levels.

 

[dblack]

And I realize that this is too high a concept for you to grasp, but WE are the government. And our general well being is vital to the ability to continue this union.

No, "we" aren't the government, and the government isn't us. Government doesn't equal society. It is a tool of society. It is our servant. But it is not "we". Even in a perfectly democratic setting, government only represents the interests of the majority. And it operates by forcing their will on everyone else.

We will just disagree about this. We elect those who serve us and they answer to us. Thus, we are the government. The minority can force changes. That's what happened during civil rights.

No, it's not. Civil rights didn't gain traction until the majority got behind it. And forced the minority (the racists) to conform. That's what the whole protected classes thing is such a sham. It operates on the nominal premise that businesses should treat everyone equal. But that's now how the laws work. Only groups with enough political clout (ie majority support) get the extra rights.

 

[danielpalos]

We have three co-equal branches of Government, for a reason.

 

[Gdjjr]

No, "we" aren't the government, and the government isn't us. Government doesn't equal society. It is a tool of society. It is our servant. But it is not "we". Even in a perfectly democratic setting, government only represents the interests of the majority. And it operates by forcing their will on everyone else.

You're correct in a sense- the gov't, in our case, represents its own interest which is only to get elected or re-elcted.
It forces it's will on us (and the rest of the world) and it is hardly a majority.

 

[Gdjjr]

We elect those who serve us and they answer to us.

Yet the don't- they allegedly represent us but they don't serve us, we serve them.
They are elected to represent their constituents and as long as you can afford to pay for play then you're good to go- not all their constituents agree with their system of pay for play society which is what we have devolved into, due, in large part, because most are lawyers- (lawyers pay others to tech them to lie, albeit legally), it's called *interpretation*-

I suspect most don't know, or don't care, because they were not taught, when their brains were sponges, that "we are the government"- and now that they are chronological adults, they know all there is to know about everything there is to know about everything there is to know about everything and refuse to read opposing views, never mind facts, well, never mind reading period. If it's not in a tribal 30 second sound bite they aren't interested.

 

[CWayne]

Incorrect. We have a limited government with a very specific role.

The general welfare refers to the health of the Republic, not to any single citizen.

why do you believe that? private laws cover private citizens Individually.

Private laws? You'll have to define that. All laws in the US are public laws. There are no private laws.

Good luck with that.

Can you name one of these 'private' laws, and what or who passed such a law that it is binding on me?

I meant "good luck" trying to get daniel to define his cryptic nonsense. He's just trolling.

Oh. My bad. Sorry. I know he is, but its fun to see if he'll actually pause and think for a change.

 

[dblack]

No, "we" aren't the government, and the government isn't us. Government doesn't equal society. It is a tool of society. It is our servant. But it is not "we". Even in a perfectly democratic setting, government only represents the interests of the majority. And it operates by forcing their will on everyone else.

You're correct in a sense- the gov't, in our case, represents its own interest which is only to get elected or re-elcted.
It forces it's will on us (and the rest of the world) and it is hardly a majority.

Well, "majority" is a best case scenario. But even then, it's still not "we" - certainly not all of us.

 

[protectionist]

Mexico has always been one of our most trusted allies

FALSE! Mexico has been our #1 enemy in the world, for more that half a century. What they can be "trusted" to do, is just what Vicente Fox said they do (did you read the link ?), which is to illegally dump millions of their people into our territory, steal millions of our jobs, and take away tens of Billions$$ every year, out of our economy, thereby giving Mexico it's top source of income. aka International Burglary.

Your post just shows what a sucker dupe you re.

 

[protectionist]

Shut your old white dementia addled ass up. Shit doesn't happen the way you say it. Turn black and let's talk about it.

I'll talk about it right now, even if you're too weak-kneed to listen. Man up.

 

[rightwinger]

Mexico has always been one of our most trusted allies

FALSE! Mexico has been our #1 enemy in the world, for more that half a century. What they can be "trusted" to do, is just what Vicente Fox said they do (did you read the link ?), which is to illegally dump millions of their people into our territory, steal millions of our jobs, and take away tens of Billions$$ every year, out of our economy, thereby giving Mexico it's top source of income. aka International Burglary.

Your post just shows what a sucker dupe you re.

Adios Amigo

 

[BrokeLoser]

it’s a phrase used by republicans to denigrate the left for wanting tuition free college or socialized healthcare, but they don’t really understand how these concepts are no different than programs already in place.

When a republican’s house is on fire or they need police assistance do they pay the responders personally? Uh no. They keep the “free shit”. You see, something like free tuition or socialized medicine are no different. All of these programs are paid for with tax payer revenue. Bernie, after all, has tax proposals to pay for his ideas.

Poor beggars can’t make the simplest distinctions...they honestly believe that forcing good Americans to pay ShaQuita and Guadalupe to run their baby factories and drop litters of filth in the laps of Americans is one and the same with taxpayers paying for the roadways and public services we all use.

 

[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.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.

 

[danielpalos]

So far we’ve learned that Daniel thinks “general welfare” should mean we can all own Ferrari’s and eat like kings by staying at home and smoking weed while others bust their ass for us.

I say it would fall within constitutional guidelines if we offered welfare seeking lowlifes a taxpayer bought tent, fishing pole and bus ride to a resource rich forest. Prove me wrong please.

Nobody is making you work in an at-will employment State. Why are you complaining? Moral slacker?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.

"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" requires the government to enact laws that favor circumstances of the overall welfare of the entire country, not to provide a free ride for the specifically unproductive and certainly not to provide for the needs of non-citizens.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.

"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" requires the government to enact laws that favor circumstances of the overall welfare of the entire country, not to provide a free ride for the specifically unproductive and certainly not to provide for the needs of non-citizens.

Anything Congress does will not help every citizen equally.
Helping the less fortunate is good for the country as a whole.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.

"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" requires the government to enact laws that favor circumstances of the overall welfare of the entire country, not to provide a free ride for the specifically unproductive and certainly not to provide for the needs of non-citizens.

Anything Congress does will not help every citizen equally.
Helping the less fortunate is good for the country as a whole.

So what are you saying? That Congress has the Right to do anything that, in their collective opinions, will help the country as a whole?

Sounds like pretty much a blank check to do anything, the complete opposite of the idea of "Limited government".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.

"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" requires the government to enact laws that favor circumstances of the overall welfare of the entire country, not to provide a free ride for the specifically unproductive and certainly not to provide for the needs of non-citizens.

Anything Congress does will not help every citizen equally.
Helping the less fortunate is good for the country as a whole.

Charity is the venue of the public square, not the federal government. The government has no legal right to play Robin Hood and exercise charity-at-gunpoint.