If, so then using the word “welfare” was extremely poor wording. Instead it should of blatantly said such.
Perhaps I did not explain my point well. The word ‘welfare’ did not have the attachment it does today to free money given to some at the expense of others. In current usage I might rephrase it to say, “promote the general well being of it’s citizens.”
It was not an altruistic principle. The government was supposed to promote the general welfare by ensuring the liberty of it’s citizens. These guys understood the concept of rights. It was so obvious to them, that it didn’t even occur to them that people would not know what they meant. It took two hundred years of statist supreme court justices and politicians to obfuscate the meaning of the document.
Read the federalist papers or other writings by these men. They understood these concepts then at least as well as I do now. I don’t believe any way of writing a constitution would make it a full proof block against the elimination of rights. Language changes too much over time. All that stops encroaching slavery and statism is a populace educated enough in the processes of critical thinking and knowledgeable enough about the concept of individual liberty to not fall for the ploys con men will always try to create.
So to answer your question explicitly, D’Kian, the language was “twisted and abused.”
) I think it is important to view historical figures in the context of their time. It can be fun and informative to compare them to standards they would have been held to in current times, but it is useless if you are really trying to gain historical understanding. The truth is their achievement was huge… and they knew that. No one walked out of that convention completely satisfied; not even Hamilton, who was the one who really pushed for the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation. If we want to have some fun, and take the FOunders out of the context of their time, I like to imagine what it would be like if we could bring them back today, and let them see what has become of their efforts. I think they would clammer to see the Constitution, and eagerly read through it’s amendments, but I think they would be astounded to see how few there have been. They thought there were more flaws and vague references needing clarification than that! When the Constitution was ratified, all of the members of the Convention knew there were flaws, but they treated it more as a foundational document rather than a perfect outline. It was something to build upon; something, in all honesty, they hoped posterity could work out the fine details on, and many FOunders specifically say that in their private letters. It’s interesting to note the difference in tone and opinion of the Founders in their public and their private papers. Look at Madison and Hamilton, in particular: two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that were publshed publically to gain support for the COnvention and the document itself. Read their private letters among their closest friend (esp. Madison & Jefferson and Hamilton and any of his political allies) and compare those to what they expressed in public. In public, they were confidant and optimistic, but in private (to their most trusted confidants) they were rationally insightful and doubtful. Kudos to John Adams for really being the only founder who presented his views in public the same way he expressed them in private. But there weren’t many men like Adams then, just as there aren’t many like him now.
)