Does "General Welfare" Mean the Government Does Whatever it Wants?

Question

1) If so, what's the point of the rest of the constitution? Isn't it just redundant?

2) If Bush decides that warrant-less searches, state-sponsored religion, and corporate welfare is good for the "general welfare," doesn't that mean he's working within the constitution?

3) Does a constitutionally limited republic mean anything to you, or should we lose rights every time a slick conman can convince a slim majority of voters?

Answer 1

Actually, Gen. Welfare is the front man and mouth piece for the government. They march him out to tell us how subverting the Constitution is good for us. Corp. Welfare is his Administrative Aide (the same last name is not nepotism, just coincidence... or so we're told).

Answer 2

General welfare, usually indicates best that can be done for the good of it's citizen's. Powerful people in Authority, twist and turn the constitution to mean whatever they want to interpret as. This is common practice of most lawmakers anymore. The constitution was a well written document that addressed many issues facing the running of a government and it's people as equally and fairly as possible. Today, it gets twisted and turned upside down to suit the powers that be. 1. no 2. no 3. no

Answer 3

Nope, incredibly no longer. that should defeat the purpose of constrained government because of fact the Founding Fathers needed. Writing appropriate to the “universal welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson observed the hazard of misinterpreting the form. the hazard interior the hands of Senators and Congressmen replaced into “that of instituting a Congress with skill to do even if could be for the best of america; and, as they may be the only judges of the best or evil, it may be additionally a skill to do even if evil they please.” in assessment to public officers for the period of Jefferson’s time, our cutting-edge day legislators have an particularly loose interpretation of the form. the top result's that government has mushroomed right into a monolithic paperwork. James Madison suggested that the “universal welfare” clause replaced into no longer meant to furnish Congress an open hand “to exercising each skill which could be supposed to be mandatory for the easy protection or universal welfare.” If by ability of the “universal welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, financial, or academic courses Congress had to create, there could have been no reason to checklist particular powers of Congress along with organising courts and protecting the defense force. those powers could only have been secure in one all-encompassing word, to “sell the universal welfare.”

Answer 4

I feel the general welfare of the United States means that the government has the authority to provide services that have the opportunity to be equally beneficial to ALL citizens. Nobody should be unfairly burdened to provide it, and nobody should unfairly benefit from it. The founding fathers had these exact same concerns about the wording of that phrase. James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.” Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” The Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We seem to have grown away from that, unfortunately. If you advocate for federal spending on social welfare programs such as "universal" healthcare, you are describing a redistribution of income (MY income) for the benefit of specific individual citizens INSTEAD of (for example) a strong national defense. Which of those activities is the government LEGALLY REQUIRED to perform? (hint: Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.)

Answer 5

It would depend on who is interpreting it at the time!