Hello:

What does the highlighted phrase in our Preamble, mean?

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, like my conservative friends, am an originalist. I take the Constitution at its word.

excon

As a part of the preamble, an intoductory statement, it means virtually nothing, just like the rest of the unhighlighted preamble means nothing. It is beautifully worded and constructed, and reflects more of an 'intention' than 'substance'. I believe the intention was to construct a framework of law that is practical and sustainable, which the Articles of Confederation were unable to do.

It is beautifully worded and constructed, and reflects more of an 'intention' than 'substance'Hello George:

I agree absolutely.

However, I'm wondering what the SPECIFIC intention of THAT clause means, or are they just pretty words?

I don't think these words in particular have anything to do with, nor do they refer to "constructing a framework of law that is practical and sustainable".

I think our framers had better things to do than just write flowery words. I think they are to be taken at face value. I think the Preamble lays the foundation for what the Constitution intends to DO.

excon

I disagree. If the words were meant to say nothing, then why write them?

If they are meant to introduce us to the topics to follow inside of the Constitution, then the Constitution should be able to explain how it will support that opening statement.

Words have meaning and particularly words written to define how a nation is to be constructed and the mechanism for such governmental administration.

However, I do not claim to be a Constitutional Expert but these words could be interpreted to mean that if the following Constitution is accurately followed then, " promoting the general welfare," will be the by-product of adopting the Constitution.

Hello:

What does the highlighted phrase in our Preamble, mean?

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, like my conservative friends, am an originalist. I take the Constitution at its word.

excon

Promote the general welfare... promote is the key word here. I actually think it means something. It means PROMOTE people, teach them, help them... not be a PERMANENT solution to an individuals wants. Food, shelter, and clothing. That should be as far as it can go. (I have mentioned the guy I work with is on assistance in every way) He just bought a big screen high def TV, and a king size bed with his tax return... and guess what? I just gave him a $250 dollar draw... for car insurance. What the hell? I want to help, I really do Excon, but there are too many people in need to waste my time and money on people who could care farkin less that we are doing it!

promote the general welfare...promote is the key word here. I actually think it means something. It means PROMOTE people, teach them, help them.....not be a PERMANENT solution to an individuals wants.Hello starty:

Nailed it!

I agree about the "wants" word too. I would insert the word "need" there...

And, I'm not in to giving away stuff either. But, what do you do with people who WON'T learn, or the people who CAN'T, like children who can't fend for themselves. Do you kick 'em to the curb?

Should the government provide a safety net?

excon

Yes, I think we should provide a safety net. And there should be tougher stipulations for people to get into the system. Just like there are people looking into homes where the kids were or are being neglected. I think a case worker should have to go to the home of the recipient and check things out. AND I think we should start asking where some of the people are getting the 100 dollar shoes... but there is nothing to eat in there cupboards. If YOU or I KNOW someone is going to come over and ask "uncomfortable" questions, then we wouldn't apply unless we really needed it.

What do you think? Is that too far into invasion of privacy? Do you think that once you are on assistance that you should become a ward of the state till you get your crap together enough to become self sufficient?

Is that too far into invasion of privacy? Hello again, starty:

Yes - for a couple of reasons: (1) Even welfare recipients have Fourth Amendment Rights, and (2) I don't differentiate "welfare" from ANY government subsidy - like the jillions the banks just got. Therefore, as long as we're not looking into the closets of ANY of those people, we shouldn't single out the poor.

They qualify or they don't. If they do, write the check and move on. They're just like anybody else who receives a government check.

excon

I will be applying tomorrow then... I am pretty sure with the way things are going, they are going to be real nice to me. I know you guys will enjoy buying my 14 year old those Nike shoes;) Hey, and just maybe I will be able to buy that damn TV I have been SAVING for;) Just a joke... sorry. Welfare in (was) not intended for people to save money and buy big stuff... it was intended to help until they got on their feet. I like the time limit thing... 3 years and you are done. If you can't do it by then, I don't know what to do... what do you do?
I agree that it may be a perfectly good example of invasion of privacy. Excon, when I fostered a few boys for an emergency need, they invaded me way more than they do the people that are on welfare. Sheesh, There are so many ways to LIE and get what you think you deserve... so I suppose the government needs to get smarter than the public.

So we just turn the other cheek and give the money? Or is there another something we can do?

"Promote the general welfare"



- it does not say PROVIDE. I'm of the opinion that promote means letting everyone have opportunity. The results are up to the individual and circumstance.

- general, does that mean for as many as possible or every single individual?

- welfare - I can't imagine the founding fathers were talking about today's welfare in which the collective money taken by the government from working individual is then redistributed to those who either can't work or won't work.






G&P

ITB... totally agree, so now that we messed it all up, how do we go back to what it WAS meant for. AND as Ex said, what about the people who really do NEED it... like kids and people that are suffering so they can't make it for themselves?

The example you gave I have no problem with.

[ rant alert ]


I just have a problem with able bodied boys that go around getting women pregnant, letting the taxpayors pay for bringing that child up. Meanwhile these boys won't get a job at Mcdonalds or delivering pizza because they feel it is beneath them or they are not getting paid enough.






G&P

I couldn't agree more with your "rant alert"
BUT, we have to make sure his kid doesn't starve or get an illness that he could have prevented by getting that job at a "lower" paying institute.
Listen, we don't have to help, but it would be really bad if we didn't. I really wish it were harder and more UNCOMFORTABLE for those who want aid. I think if it were a hassle, then they wouldn't even do it. All it takes is to show your pay stubs in a three month period... and to be at a certain income. We need to reconstruct, and we need to do it now. I would say that we can't afford it, but they will just print more money and screw the rest of us instead of saying we can't afford it.

The CHURCH does a lot for these people who have no where else to turn. It is all because of Christian's adherence to what the Bible teaches. They provide shelter, food, and clothing to both adults and children. Sometimes they pay rent and utilities for famlies. They do what they can with the funds available to them.
And what they get in return is all too often unjustified criticism and verbal abuse.
I know that's a little off thread, but has already been brought up.

It has to be viewed in terms of the powers granted to Congress in Article One, Section Eight, Clause One.

Congress has the authority to tax and spend for three purposes: for the common defense, to pay debts and to promote the general welfare.

It grants Congress taxing power but also limits them . Why did they say general welfare instead of just welfare? Because they meant it was not to tax and spend for the specific welfare of regions, individuals, or groups.

The real problem with the clause is that Jefferson and Hamilton and their factions had major differences on the interpretation with Hamilton arguing for a broad interpretation . So looking to the founders for an interpretation will show that even they had differences in the meaning of the phrase. SCOTUS came down in favor of the Hamilton view in the 1936 US v Butler case(along with other cases) ; that basically Congress has the power to tax under a broad interpretation of "general welfare ",and that it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” .

It means promoting the general welfare was among those things for which the constitution itself was authorized and established. Go ahead, tell us what else it means.

Hello again:

Ok, the word of the day is "promote".

Does that mean the government should engage in a promotional campaign, like talking, persuading, mailing, putting commercials on TV, and such to PROMOTE the idea.

Is THAT all the job of government is, to talk a good story??

What if all that talking (promoting) DOESN'T actually make any changes in the general welfare of the people? Is that it? The government is off the hook, because it did its Constitutional job of "promoting"?

Or, does it mean MORE than simply mouthing the words?

excon

According to Jefferson yes ;it is a restrictive phrase . Hamilton took a broader view and used it to justify among other things ,creation of the National Bank and ,Manufacturing protectionism .

But I have so far only given Hamilton's view . Here was Madison's :

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers (enumerated ) 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 proof was not contemplated by its creators."

Jefferson said :
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."


One thing is clear . The Preamble was the goals of the Constitution . The power to tax for the general welfare was embodied in Article One . Promote in the preamble along with the rest of the preamble is a goal not a guarantee .

The definition of "promote" is irrelevant beyond those powers enumerated in the constitution itself. Tom is right, the preamble is goals, it defines the purpose of the constitution - in order to for a more perfect union form... do ordain and establish this Constitution. If it isn't in the words that follow the preamble it isn't an enumerated power.

How about give it for a certain time... then start loaning it to them? Make them pay it back? I have been thinking about a good idea to help our fellow man without getting screwed over by the "user"... Come on, aren't there any other ideas out there?

Another question that I came up with... am I responsible to turn people in if they are lying to get into the system... how about you? Is it our duty to turn them in or is it none of our business? Would anything be done anyway?