Founding Fathers

[D'kian]

It was not an altruistic principle. The government was supposed to promote the general welfare by ensuring the liberty of it's citizens.

What need for repetition, then? Why "secure the blessings of Liberty" along with "promote the general welfare"? The wording is clear they considered liberty and welfare to be two separate things.

I don't believe any way of writing a constitution would make it a full proof block against the elimination of rights.

Of course not. Any constitution would contain provisions to amend it. Given that, any change is possible eventually.

[DragonMaci]

Of course not. Any constitution would contain provisions to amend it. Given that, any change is possible eventually.

Not only that but any constitution could be replaced totally, or replaced with another, or altered anyway.

[aequalsa]

Maybe, but that doesn't really matter. As I said, it isn't the government's job to provide welfare in any sense.

It does matter. Promoting the general welfare is not accomplished by providing welfare. Welfare in the modern sense was not even a concept. The "general welfare" of people is provided for by protecting their liberties, securing their borders, and maintaining peace through diplomacy with other countries. The point I am making which I am not certain you understand is that the meaning of the word is different now from how it was meant.

You should try sticking to what I actually said, because that argument fails to do so. I never said it was altruistic.

And you should try being more polite. That was in response to D'kian's next statement. I apologize for not making that explicitly clear.

Not fully they didn't. If they had of fully understood the concept of rights they would never of granted congress the power to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce.

The power to tax seemed necessary at the time to secure liberty and create a country. That power would not be nearly so oppressive as now were it needed only to maintain a government in the strict sense intended.

That was a big mistake. They should of defined what they meant so as to avoid having people not misinterpret them.

I do not think that it is possible to innocently misunderstand the meaning of the preamble. I doubt very much that any additional defining would not be similarly "misinterpreted" by those with a will to do so.

It doesn't matter if it took 1 year or 1,000, what matters is that it happened and that it happened because they didn't explain what they meant so that it could not be misinterpreted. It also matters that by putting in the crap allowing congress to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce. That crap allowed for a lot of the crap that exists today.

As above, I do not think any amount of explanation could be so precise as to avoid having those who desire power choose to interpret it to their own benefit. Nor could it be so precise that masses with no understanding of liberty could not vote them away. The 9th and 10th amendments I brought up because they are so specific and have been deliberately ignored by the supreme court for more then a century. Words on paper can not ultimately protect liberty.

No, they didn't or they would never of allowed congress the power to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce

.

I have some agreement with you here, but the historical context as I understand it was that they viewed this as a necessary evil since the articles did not provide(with money) a way for the government to exist and provide for liberty at all.

Some of it, yes. Some of it, no. The parts allowing congress to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce were not.

Ironically(perhaps not) that is the only part which has not been interpreted in direct contradiction to its intended meaning. Though I think it is fair to say they have used those more broadly and deeply than they thought were possible.

[DragonMaci]

And you should try being more polite. That was in response to D'kian's next statement. I apologize for not making that explicitly clear.

I wasn't rude or anything of the like, so you have nothing to complain about.

The power to tax seemed necessary at the time to secure liberty and create a country.

I know they thought that. That is the mistake I am saying they made.

As above, I do not think any amount of explanation could be so precise as to avoid having those who desire power choose to interpret it to their own benefit.

Oh, of course. However, it could of prevented certain abuses or at least made them harder to bring about had they done so.

Nor could it be so precise that masses with no understanding of liberty could not vote them away.

Again you are trying to address a statement that does not exist.

Words on paper can not ultimately protect liberty.

And again. You know when you try to argue against non-existent arguments all you achieve is making yourself look bad.

I have some agreement with you here, but the historical context as I understand it was that they viewed this as a necessary evil since the articles did not provide(with money) a way for the government to exist and provide for liberty at all.

For a reply to this see my second reply in this post.

Ironically(perhaps not) that is the only part which has not been interpreted in direct contradiction to its intended meaning. Though I think it is fair to say they have used those more broadly and deeply than they thought were possible.

I agree with you 100% on that.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I think people here are taking "promote the general welfare" out of context. Here's the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common

defence, 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.

The thing is one long sentence with a bunch of parallel phrases; let me remove some of the other ones:

We the People of the United States, in Order to....

promote the general Welfare, ...

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's not meant to be a grant of power to the government to "promote the general Welfare", regardless of what that phrase means; it was one of their reasons for creating the constitution in the first place. It was their belief that having an improved government would just by itself "promote the general Welfare". Specific grants of power were made in the main body of the constitution. Remember that the government in place before this under the Articles of Confederation was considered by them to be too weak to do its proper job; the country was falling apart; states were levying tariffs on each other, and that was itself causing problems.

The interstate commerce clause was, I agree, a major blunder. The problem it allegedly addressed was states raising tariff barriers against other states; however this could have been taken care of simply by prohibiting that, not giving the power to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government. This is so obvious that it actually makes me somewhat sympathetic with those who claim that the constitution was *deliberately* filled with loopholes for a federal government to amass power.

[Qwertz]

The Preamble is not positive law. The phrase "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble is not what lets Congress promote the general welfare. The "general Welfare" of positive law comes from Art. I, § 8, cl. 1:

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...

The Spending Clause gives Congress explicit authority to tax and spend in the promotion of the "general Welfare."

~Q