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?

by rational thought you mean only if you agree with it right

checks and balances aloud the pariot act yet you say he is violating the constitution for that.

uh actaully the only ruling by the supreme court was on the holding of combatants without a trial. all the other rulings were from lower courts specifically a shopped court in New Orleans. But I can assure when it is apporved libs will say its a republican mouth piece on the bench. I cant wait to see that. Ill make sure to bring this back up then.

they also ruled to allow faith based initiatives. I bet I can find some complaints on that if I tried

Answer 1

The founding fathers wouldn't recognize our country.

And they would be disgusted that we gave it all up so easily.

The Constitution was first thrown out with Prohibition, then switched to drug laws and now the rest of our rights are under attack.

All in the name of safety and security, of which we have neither. Because one can never be safe from everything, no matter how many laws the government creates.

Scary times are coming and the average American is too stupid to realize what they are doing.

Wish I could start my own country.

Answer 2

Nope, absolutely not. That would defeat the purpose of limited government as the Founding Fathers desired.

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.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.

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.”

Answer 3

well... I think we're far past a "constitutionally limited republic"...

but I think that it's pretty clear about the division of power and the checks and balances that are in play...

if something passes the checks an balances... then I think it can become law... and it's up to those checks and balances to make sure that we stay "constitutionally limited"... which they've probably failed... perhaps out of necessity to some degree, with all the world level responsibilty the U.S. has now as a superpower...

but the items Bush has used haven't passed checks and balances for the most part... that would be the catch...

BUT THEY (Bush's violations) DIDN'T make it past the checks and balances... the Supreme court shot them down... mostly if I remember...

Answer 4

It gives the government some leeway, but it would seem that government has a right to promote the general welfare, so long as it does not violate another part of the constitution (like critics claim warrantless searches and state-sponsored religion do). The government isn't prohibited from enacting a national healthcare plan, or providing social security or medicaire or medicaid, etc. But, the government is specifically prohibited from doing certain things, like unreasonable search and seizure, establishment of a religion, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Answer 5

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made." - James Madison

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." - Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817)

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

Answer 6

General welfare encompasses a broad umbrella that is hopefully guided by rational thought.

Apparently the drafters placed some trust in the checks and balances they instituted.

Answer 7

Why would Bush follow the Constitution to him it's just a G.D. piece of paper. But let us also not forget the not so famous Echelon program that was developed by the beloved Bill Clinton. It happened to be more invasive than the Patriot Act (if you can believe that) funny, but you didn't really see that one on CNN much.

Answer 8

no, it means the government does what is necessary to guarantee that all citizens are free from having to suffer the ill choices of others. and if that means granting acess to health care, so people who can't afford it isn't making it impossible for me to go out in public, without getting sick, than so be it!

Answer 9

Nope, but government has used this as a excuse to grow into a massive beauracracy and create numerous new programs.