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.
How does that matter when there is no stipulation in the Constitution that the welfare of citizens or persons is to be provided for?
Uh, duh, it matters because you are arguing about the Founding Fathers intent. You are arguing about what they meant. How can you do this without an understanding of what the words meant to them?
So let me post the text *again*, as you haven't read it. The word "promote" does not appear.
The verb "provide" applies to both the "common defense" and the "general welfare" in this sentence.
Disburse is not used. General welfare doesn't mean the same thing as we have developed the term "welfare" to mean in politics, but that political term is very clearly encompassed within the scope of the spending power of Congress.
*United States* as a political entity. There are very few limits on how Congress can decide to spend money under this clause of the Constitution. Subject to a few external limits (e.g., the Establishment Clause or hijacking State executive authority), it is for Congress to decide what "provide for the common defense and general welfare" includes. If Congress wants to provide what we use the term "welfare," to mean in politics, then the spending power gives Congress that authority.
You are a little late to the game.
Yes, and it is in there in the same sentence as promote. Making the meaning not the same, as they wish it to be. It does not say provide for the defense and provide general welfare. They are to sell the ideas and let the people make the educated choices for themselves.
Not the government choosing and then providing it. No freedom and liberty involved there.
Yes, and it is in there in the same sentence as promote. Making the meaning not the same, as they wish it to be. It does not say provide for the defense and provide for the general welfare.
YOU keep on saying that those arguing with you are trying to make the meaning the same. But in fact, that's untrue. You've been told it's untrue. And yet you persist in saying that. That seems pretty dishonest to me.
Uh, duh, it matters because you are arguing about the Founding Fathers intent. You are arguing about what they meant. How can you do this without an understanding of what the words meant to them?
They clearly used two different words in the same sentence: "provide" and "promote." That alone tells us all the two are not the same thing.
Neither are they the same. If the welfare of citizens or people were to be provided for by the Federal Government, the Constitution would have stated such. It doesn't. Social welfare programs that benefit citizens/people are the purview of each of the States, per the 10th Amendment.
Neither are they the same. If the welfare of citizens or people were to be provided for by the Federal Government, the Constitution would have stated such. It doesn't. Social welfare programs that benefit citizens/people are the purview of each of the States, per the 10th Amendment.
No one says they are the same.
How about telling us what the Founding Fathers meant by the word "welfare"?
Neither are they the same. If the welfare of citizens or people were to be provided for by the Federal Government, the Constitution would have stated such. It doesn't. Social welfare programs that benefit citizens/people are the purview of each of the States, per the 10th Amendment.
Instead of arguing semantics and linguistics:
How do you think Congress should "promote general welfare" for the country?
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.