[Mouton]

I did not know the Preamble had not been ratified. That being the case, seems to me the “general welfare “”clause”” has no legal standing and all statutes based upon it, including court decisions are null and void.

[DesertRhino]

“Promote the general welfare” is an absolutely fine idea. It simply means broad brush, create a society where people prosper. There is not a need to avoid the phrase.
And it does not mean provide the livelihood to individuals.

[DesertRhino]

Promote general welfare means, have a functioning court system. Establish money. Protect rights.

That is all it ever meant until the socialists came in

[MosesKnows]

I did not know the Preamble had not been ratified

That was my mistake.

The Preamble to the Constitution was ratified and the 114th Congress read it.

I was referring to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which was not ratified.

[wideminded]

I did not know the Preamble had not been ratified. That being the case, seems to me the “general welfare “”clause”” has no legal standing

"The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." - Wikipedia