Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh and I suppose Jefferson was throwing out the constitution when he introduced the idea of public school supported by founding fathers including Washington
The 'general welfare' clause is commonly misinterpreted.
Let's look at that phrase in context.
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
This phrase grants Congress the rights to tax for the general welfare of the United States as a whole. Do you understand what this means? There is a huge difference between the welfare of a country and the welfare of the individuals within that country. This clause provides congress with the power to protect the country as a whole (national defense, for example). It does NOT allow congress to take care of every individual person. The welfare of individuals is not covered ANYWHERE in the constitution.
So again, tell us where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the right to provide for the welfare of individuals. As is obvious, the section you have quoted is not adequate.
The 'general welfare' clause is commonly misinterpreted.
Let's look at that phrase in context.
This phrase grants Congress the rights to tax for the general welfare of the United States as a whole. Do you understand what this means? There is a huge difference between the welfare of a country and the welfare of the individuals within that country. This clause provides congress with the power to protect the country as a whole (national defense, for example). It does NOT allow congress to take care of every individual person. The welfare of individuals is not covered ANYWHERE in the constitution.
So again, tell us where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the right to provide for the welfare of individuals. As is obvious, the section you have quoted is not adequate.
it could be interpreted either way. considering that the welfare of the country and the welfare of its people are undeniably linked.
The 'general welfare' clause is commonly misinterpreted.
Let's look at that phrase in context.
This phrase grants Congress the rights to tax for the general welfare of the United States as a whole. Do you understand what this means? There is a huge difference between the welfare of a country and the welfare of the individuals within that country. This clause provides congress with the power to protect the country as a whole (national defense, for example). It does NOT allow congress to take care of every individual person. The welfare of individuals is not covered ANYWHERE in the constitution.
So again, tell us where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the right to provide for the welfare of individuals. As is obvious, the section you have quoted is not adequate.
Without individuals, there wouldn't be any country.
The military may be charged with protecting the country, but when individual citizens are at risk, the military saves individuals. The Coast Guard rescuing people at sea, for example. The CDC may be charged with protecting the country from disease, but it's individuals that get innoculated against those diseases. The highway department builds roads, but the roads get used by individual citizens. Any argument that general welfare doesn't apply to individuals is a false argument.
As many have already pointed out above healthcare is indeed important to the general welfare not only to individuals but also to the economic welfare of this country.
Was not public education of the individual also important to the general welfare of this country? Our founding fathers certainly thought so!
it could be interpreted either way. considering that the welfare of the country and the welfare of its people are undeniably linked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Without individuals, there wouldn't be any country.
The military may be charged with protecting the country, but when individual citizens are at risk, the military saves individuals. The Coast Guard rescuing people at sea, for example. The CDC may be charged with protecting the country from disease, but it's individuals that get innoculated against those diseases. The highway department builds roads, but the roads get used by individual citizens. Any argument that general welfare doesn't apply to individuals is a false argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
As many have already pointed out above healthcare is indeed important to the general welfare not only to individuals but also to the economic welfare of this country.
Was not public education of the individual also important to the general welfare of this country? Our founding fathers certainly thought so!
You are all assuming everything our government currently does is Constitutional.
Faulty assumptions are not good bases for arguements.
You are all assuming everything our government currently does is Constitutional.
Faulty assumptions are not good bases for arguements.
neither is your perception of the meaning behind a five hundred year old document.
the world has changed, so should the document.
There are no provisions for set speed limits on national highways either in the constitution.
yet that didnt stop the government from posting them.
hide behind the constitution all you want.
alot of it doesnt apply directly to the modern world.
thats why there are amendments.
neither is your perception of the meaning behind a five hundred year old document.
the world has changed, so should the document.
There are no provisions for set speed limits on national highways either in the constitution.
yet that didnt stop the government from posting them.
hide behind the constitution all you want.
alot of it doesnt apply directly to the modern world.
thats why there are amendments.
It's also why the document was left so open to interpretation.. and therefore things like education, health care etc.. DOES and HAS fallen under the general welfare !!!
Funny.. the same people who want to hide behind the constitution tend to be the same ones who like to throw it out the window if it fits their "agenda".
It's also why the document was left so open to interpretation.. and therefore things like education, health care etc.. DOES and HAS fallen under the general welfare !!!
Funny.. the same people who want to hide behind the constitution tend to be the same ones who like to throw it out the window if it fits their "agenda".
Unbelievable. I am the one who is using the Constitution in the correct context. You are the one who is changing the meaning because (as you admit) the 'world is changing'. If the Constitution is to change, a new amendment must be passed. Saying the Constitution is a living document does not mean we change our interpretation of it (as you obviously are, and admitted to in the post before this), but it means we can amend it if need be.
Ignorance such as yours is the reason our country is in shambles.
Unbelievable. I am the one who is using the Constitution in the correct context. You are the one who is changing the meaning because (as you admit) the 'world is changing'. If the Constitution is to change, a new amendment must be passed. Saying the Constitution is a living document does not mean we change our interpretation of it (as you obviously are, and admitted to in the post before this), but it means we can amend it if need be.
Ignorance such as yours is the reason our country is in shambles.
Oh please.. i'm not the one that said that the document's meaning is changed.
I am stating, however, that the document is left often for interpretation so that it COULD be more flexible as the time changes.
AND AGAIN. GENERAL WELFARE.
The founding fathers saw fit that EDUCATING the population and creating a public education fit under the "general weflare" context when they first proposed education.
And as pointed out by other posters.. the health care issue.. one that is a problem on a NATIONAL LEVEL and AFFECTS THE HEALTH of our NATIONAL economy certainly falls under the GENERAL WELFARE context of the constitution.
AS was ALSO pointed out .. without the INDIVIDUAL there IS NO NATION!
Not sure why they're trying to hard to get support when the Republicans will oppose anything they propose for no other reason than to oppose it. Baucus spent months working with Republicans only to find out it was a waste of his time and detrimental to his party. The time for bipartisanship is over. They need to push their plan through and be prepared for the idea that it might fail... and be ready to take full responsibility for it. Because it's clear that the Republicans are betting the house on it failing and are only going to go on record as opposing anything that the Dems put out, even after fighting for concessions. What's the point of conceding anything if the Reps won't support it in the end anyway?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
