"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."
I'm always amazed at the suggestion that our forefathers did not
believe this country should provide certain benefits to all, for the
good of all, at the expense of all.
To form a union [group; society] and provide help as a whole to
all that live as part of our union, is fairly clear in the preamble.
It's the exaggeration of the intent; the providing of certain "benefits"
that do not truly of benefit all citizens. It is the providing of certain
services that are not promoting the general welfare, but only the
bank accounts of those distributing those "benefits" [ala' Joe Kennedy
and Mass Oil], that we lose sight of our Constitution's intent.
But to claim that "public schooling", "the food and drug industry",
or other matters of concern [environmental] that effect our entire
Nation's welfare in it's whole, should be exempted from control;
that it is "socialistic" to put any control upon it, is sheer folly.
You can't guarantee our Constitution's intent if you disregard
it's intent.
The "general welfare," the phrase most usually seized upon by social-welfare-fascists to justify their incursions on freedom, has only one conceivable meaning: the defense of all rights to life, liberty and property. Once you try to interpret the phrase as a license to invade any individual's rights, or the rights of any group of individuals however defined, for the benefit of some other group, be it larger or smaller, you have excluded the victimized group from the "general welfare."
Not one of the Framers would have approved of any of the things you appear to want to justify, except that Jefferson would have approved of government-run schools. (All right, the man was a genius, but he was wrong now and then, too.) An income tax? Zoning? Laws that dictate who may sell what, and what standards it must meet? Not a chance. Those were the precise things they rebelled against England for imposing upon them.
You don't think so? Look it up. Look up the Pine Tree Act. Look up the various acts that forbade Americans to trade with non-English firms on any basis. As for government-run schools, all but Jefferson would have shied back in horror, noting immediately that no other conceivable organ of State propaganda could possibly be as effective at producing docile and submissive subjects as a State school.
Let's have an end to this "general welfare" BS. There are only individuals and their rights. Trample anyone's rights -- which do NOT include a right to anything that belongs to any other man, nor a right to anything that someone else must produce for him -- and you lose the entire point of the American Constitutional enterprise.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Interesting that you should bring up 'public schooling' because it was not in the Founders' intent and was not established until 1867, and the passage of the infamous 14th Amendment, which also BTW destroyed the rights of the states requiring elected officials to recognize Almighty God(as outlined in many state constitutions). The only place federally funded schooling had ever been mentioned before this time was in the Northwest Ordinance and was mainly aimed at Indian children to teach them English
But to claim that "public schooling", "the food and drug industry", or other matters of concern [environmental] that effect our entire Nation's welfare in it's whole, should be exempted from control; that it is "socialistic" to put any control upon it, is sheer folly.
Here are a few quotes from James Madison on this subject. The first is from The Federalist, #41, and concerns the general welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8, which echos the general welfare clause in the preamble:
For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceeding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effects than to confound and mislead is an absurdity...
This one is from a Congressional debate in 1792:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the hightest object of state legislation down to the minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress...
These quotes show that Madison saw the Constitution's statements about the general welfare as general and subject to the enumeration of powers. He specifically rules out federal involvement in education along with a lot of other things that lots of people view as being good for the general welfare of the Union. I assume the other Framers felt similarly.
Section 8. Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;
Thus, we have established that the Congress has the constitutional power "to put any control upon it," as you say.
Agreed.
However, this "control upon it" still has to conform to the Bill of Rights. And it is the this lack of conformity that makes the "control upon it," or regulations, socialistic.
Most if not all enviromental regulations violate the 5th amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Public school and food/drug regulatins violate the 5th amendment, as described above and the 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You and all citizens have the inherent, God-given right to educate their children as they see fit, with their tax money, without government interference. That is the right the 9th amendment protects.
It is this disregard for our consitutionally protected rights by our federal government that is driving many citizens crazy.
And your blind support of it, as well as many others, only emboldens federal legislators to continue denying and disparaging our unenemerated rights.
You can't guarantee our Constitution's intent if you disregard it's intent.
Yes, but wouldn't you agree that the Framers' intent for the Constitution is reflected at least as much in their circumscriptive enumeration of Congress's powers as it is in their wording of the preamble? I think you are trying to use the preamble to undermine the body.