Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rurudyne

I suspect it’s because to our founders, “general welfare” was synonymous with “maximum liberty” and “minimal government intrusion.” When read in that regard, the clauses are not only consistent, but mutually reinforcing.


2 posted on 03/20/2010 11:08:23 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Joe 6-pack

You can thank Alex Hamilton(another Bastard) for injecting “General Welfare” into the US Constitution.


3 posted on 03/20/2010 11:10:29 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Joe 6-pack

Yes.

Or as Chief Justice Marshall might observe: “Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.”

Meaning that if there are any delegated Powers for promoting the general Welfare (post office, patents, etc...) than their very existence demonstrates that they are THE Powers ... and there are no others.

Also as an aside, this may easily be the least wall’o’text-like post on this subject that I’ve ever made that still manages to cover the material.


6 posted on 03/20/2010 11:13:24 AM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson