Is the U.S. executive and legislative definition of "general welfare" too broad? Has it been abused from it's

Question

original intent? Many would argue that these two words in the Constituiton have been misconstrued to force upon the people systems and policies that conflict with original intent.

Answer 1

Quite possibly. More the legislative interpretation, since Congress is the branch that sets the laws and determines what gets spent, and the executive branch merely sees that the spending happens.

But that's the thing about the legislative branch. They can interpret the original intent too. They can do what they think is appropriate. And later sessions of Congress can change that balance. Congress controls the budget.

So, can we really say it is being misconstrued, when we Congress can change how it is interpreted whenever they want.

Answer 2

It doesn't take a linguist to figure out that the term:

WELFARE iin the 18th Century...

...is a really DIFFERENT animal from:

WELFARE in the all-invasive statist concrete mix of the 21st.

Aha...There's the rub.

Now when you wake up in the morning with a sore "lower back", you know the reason why.

Answer 3

'General Welfare' is a code for doing whatever you want to do. The scope of the phrase is as wide as the invokers imagination. Certainly it gives the Supreme Court such wide scope that it is virtually meaningless in terms of principle.