NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this to say that the US government is completely responsible for healthcare and providing for those "down on their luck", or that it is here to at most provide basic needs when required?

My teacher, I believe, is trying to push that the government is responsible for complete welfare. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.

"The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence. "

http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

I do like that definition. Any other thoughts?

Why not see what works best from a practical viewpoint without viewing the evidence through ideological binders; and then (here's the really neat part) different political parties could campaign on different levels and kinds of welfare and then people could vote for what they thought was best. Pretty neat idea, huh?

I do like that definition. Any other thoughts?
We're doing a real bad job folowing that definition?

We're doing a real bad job folowing that definition?


"..What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people."

"..What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people."
So we're doing a real bad job at following that definition.

It's just precatory language.

As the consitution is a framework of limited powers for the federal government - the necessary and proper clause notwithstanding - the plain meaning of "general welfare" is that it is hoped to be accomplished through said limitation, not by ignoring it.

So no, it cannot be used as a justification for giving money to poor people. (At least not as a constitutional requirement).

Is this to say that the US government is completely responsible for healthcare and providing for those "down on their luck", or that it is here to at most provide basic needs when required?

My teacher, I believe, is trying to push that the government is responsible for complete welfare. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.

Did the founders of the nation intend it to mean that? Absolutely not.

Does it matter what they inteded or even what the constitution means? Absolutely not. The constitution's only use today is as a political tool a party can use to criticize the opposing party. When both parties agree on something completely unconstitutional, it happens. The "interpretation" of the constitution is done by judges hand picked to allow the opposing party's infringements of the constitution while upholding his own party's. The only checks and balances are between the Republicans and the Democrats, and the parties are the institutions who determine policy.

Is this bad? Yes and no. Yes it's bad that they are in power, No it isn't bad that the Constitution is disregarded. The Constitution was signed by a bunch of old white guys who belonged to a culture foreign to ours, and who have absolutly no right to assert their authority over us, less right in fact than the Republicans or Democrats. The constitution should have no authority over America, and neither should the parties.

So we're doing a real bad job at following that definition.

correct. According to THAT definition we suck. we sucked under clinton. We sucked under bush sr. etc.etc.

It's just precatory language.

As the consitution is a framework of limited powers for the federal government - the necessary and proper clause notwithstanding - the plain meaning of "general welfare" is that it is hoped to be accomplished through said limitation, not by ignoring it.

So no, it cannot be used as a justification for giving money to poor people. (At least not as a constitutional requirement).That's the way you see it--the beautiful thing about the Constitution is that it's written very ambiguously, with lots of abstractions thrown in there that leaves us room for debate and argument over interpretation. That's why it's a living document, no matter what Clarence Thomas thinks.

The constitution states that the federal government's role is to provide for the common defense. This means that armed forces exist to protect american lives and property from all threats, both foreign as well as domestic. The phrase "promote the general welfare" means that the government is to engage in projects which enable socio-economic progress, like road construction, banking, and schooling. Notice that the constitution uses the word "promote", rather than "provide". If the writers of the U.S. constitution wanted for the federal government to take responsibility for the public wellbeing through a welfare state, they would have used the word "provide", rather than "promote". Therefore private citizens must provide for there own welfare, through such things as wages and donations.

That's the way you see it--the beautiful thing about the Constitution is that it's written very ambiguously, with lots of abstractions thrown in there that leaves us room for debate and argument over interpretation. That's why it's a living document, no matter what Clarence Thomas thinks.

No it's not just the way I see it. It is in fact precatory. (Unless you wish to ignore the reast of the document). Otherwise, the rest of the constitution would become superfluous.

Okay?

Now, if you wish to argue about the extent of implied powers under the necessary and proper clause, or the extent that the active commerce clause allows income redistribution, I am more than willing to entertain such a disscusion in respect of welfare. But you are blatantly implying that "welfare" qua "welfare" is required constitutionally under the ageis of the general welfare clause, and that is simply nonsensical in light of the rest of the constitution.

Is this to say that the US government is completely responsible for healthcare and providing for those "down on their luck", or that it is here to at most provide basic needs when required?

My teacher, I believe, is trying to push that the government is responsible for complete welfare. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.
That's why the word "general" is in there. The idea was to promote the general level of personal welfare among the population as a whole by sound economic and fiscal policies, not to provide a handout to individuals.

No it's not just the way I see it. It is in fact precatory. (Unless you wish to ignore the reast of the document). Otherwise, the rest of the constitution would become superfluous.

Okay?

Now, if you wish to argue about the extent of implied powers under the necessary and proper clause, or the extent that the active commerce clause allows income redistribution, I am more than willing to entertain such a disscusion in respect of welfare. But you are blatantly implying that "welfare" qua "welfare" is required constitutionally under the ageis of the general welfare clause, and that is simply nonsensical in light of the rest of the constitution.
What I'm implying is that the meaning of the words welfare, promote, and general have either changed or evolved over the last 216 years since the Founders put that word on paper, and thus our understanding and interpretation of the Constitution may have evolved as well. There's also the issue of words having multiple meanings--especially general out of the list I provided. I'm not trying to get into a line by line debate of the Constitution here--frankly, I'm not qualified for that, as I'm a dilettante on the subject.

But I do know language and its evolution, and I know that the main reason the Constitution has remained viable over its lifetime is because it is ambiguous and abstract, and is thus open to interpretation.