Posted on 09/11/2008 2:15:46 PM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
Like many other definitions that have been rewritten by left-wingnuts over time, the term “general welfare” no longer means what it did when it was written in our Constitution and ratified by the colonies in 1789.
As Thomas Jefferson once explained, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
The preamble to the Constitution establishes the goal of the effort as to; “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
Today’s limousine liberals insist that the term “general welfare” implies a Marxist view that the federal government has the duty and the power to “take from each according to his ability, and give to each according to his need,” - to define and measure out individual well-being against the will of some on behalf of others. This is not only very dangerous to the basic concepts of liberty and freedom; it is diametrically at odds with everything the founders formed.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
There is NOTHING American about the lefts economic plan for America.
"55 MEN The Story of the Constitution" Based on the day-by-day notes of James Madison by Fred Rodell, 1907.
What was this danger against which the Senate must guard!
Madison explained "An increase in population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feeling of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former."
As soon then, as the poor could outvote the rich, they would make plans for a more equal distribution of wealth.
Good post!
And once those unable to succeed at home, control the nations wealth by way of legislative theft, what happens next?
I believe the operative term is “promote the general welfare.” Not provide it.
So, taxation violates my constitutional 'right of assocation'.
Am I reading this right?
“Association” referring to “collective self-governance” I believe. The rights if the individual trumping the rights of a so-called “greater good.”
Few rights are absolute, but most rights may only legitimately be infringed upon under very narrow circumstances. Taxation for truly necessary government expenditures would represent an unavoidable infringement. Taxation for purposes of redistribution represents an illegitimate one.
Sharing the cost of common interests is one thing. Tyrannizing 2% for benefit of 98% is another.
Oh really?
Our definition of a 'right' must be very different.
Second Amendment rights are legitimately subject to certain exceptions e.g. during a bona fide arrest. If cops were not allowed to disarm prisoners while taking them into custody, it would be impossible to prevent dangerous crooks from escaping pending arraignment.
Fourth Amendment rights are legitimately subject to an 'exigent circumstances' exception. If a policeman sees flames coming out of a building and hears a crying baby inside, there's no requirement that he get a warrant before breaking down the door.
People have not been convicted of crimes may generally not be enslaved, but in times of bona fide war, military conscription has long been recognized as an exception.
I could go on.
There is a legitimate need for a government that has the power to tax. There is not, however, a legitimate basis for legislators to spend other peoples' money more carelessly than their own.
In the real world, 'they don't wash'.
So should people who are in jail pending arraignment be allowed to keep their weapons in jail? Should policemen get warrants before trying to rescue someone in a burning building (yes, I know that in general prudence would suggest that it would usually be better for people without protective gear to stay out of burning buildings, but I wouldn't say that the Constitution requires it). Is conscription never legitimate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.