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

To: Southack
What people do who don't *like* the general welfare clause of the Constitution is simply to ignore it or to dismiss it as though it had never been ratified into the law of the land.

No, what people do who *like* it a little TOO much is to pretend the phrase "general welfare of the United States" actually says "specific welfare of each of the people" and pretend to believe that the Founding Fathers intended to create a Borg state.

The meaning of the clause has been perverted in the same way as the interstate commerce clause -- a fig leaf for the actions of those whose goals for us are generally diametrically opposed to the goals of those who authored the document they distort.

Sophistry in the service of an ulterior motive.

18 posted on 04/06/2003 3:32:58 PM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Yeti
"what people do who *like* it a little TOO much is to pretend the phrase "general welfare of the United States" actually says "specific welfare of each of the people" and pretend to believe that the Founding Fathers intended to create a Borg state."

Yawn...

Are you completely dismissing *any* meaning from the general welfare phrase in our Constitution, or are you one of the last 3 intellectually honest libertarians willing to actually post the *specific* meaning that you ascribe to the phrase "general welfare"?

23 posted on 04/06/2003 4:13:43 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Yeti
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."

95 posted on 04/07/2003 5:55:35 AM PDT by gorush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Yeti
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson
96 posted on 04/07/2003 5:56:20 AM PDT by gorush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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