Liberals Love the 'General Welfare' Clause

In a previous article, I pointed out that one commenter to an article I had written tried to argue that Jesus was an advocate for socialism. It’s an old story that lacks facts to back up the premise.

In the same comment, he made the absurd claim that the United States Constitution was designed to promote wealth distribution. It’s no wonder that more than 50 percent of voters supported the most socialistic president in United States history. Here’s what he wrote:

“The Constitution, which we all revere, explicitly states that Congress has the power to levy taxes to provide for the common welfare — to include roads, bridges etc. The common welfare includes ALL people. To argue that taxes are all inherently stealing from you is to deny the very Constitution that is the foundation of the United States. I don't agree with everything Prof. Krugman says but in this case he is right. We have the largest wealth inequality since the 1920's and that did in fact hasten the collapse of the markets and the advent of the Great Depression. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and pretend history is unimportant.”

Since the income tax amendment wasn’t ratified until 1913, it’s hard to make the case that our founders were pushing ways to abolish “wealth inequality” since there was no instrument to tax people unequally.

Here’s the introductory text of the “general welfare” provision in Art. I, sec. 8 of the Constitution:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It’s clear that the “general welfare” (not “common welfare”) clause is not about wealth redistribution. There are 18 powers granted to the Federal government in the full context of Article 1, section 8 with no mention of wealth redistribution, education, retirement security, or health care.

As James Madison made clear in Federalist 41, the phrase “general welfare” is immediately followed “and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon.” He went on to state that “[n]othing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars,” which the Constitution does.[1] Read the list for yourself.

“General welfare” in constitutional terms means welfare that benefits everybody more or less equally. This can be clearly seen in providing “for the common Defense.” Taxes collected to defend the nation benefit everybody generally.

Taxing some people so other people can have decent housing or a college education or healthcare is not general welfare; it’s particular welfare. Taking money from some people so it can be given to other people is not what the constitution means by general welfare.

Bridges and roads are paid for by people who use them. The more you drive, the more you pay. If you don’t own a car, you pay the tax indirectly in the goods that travel over the roads by trucks that purchase fuel and pay the tax, an expense that’s passed on to consumers, as is every other tax.


Notes:
  1. The Federalist No. 41: General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution (January 19, 1788). []

  • Screeminmeeme

    Good point. I've heard this argument from the left a thousand times and your refutation of it is right on. It's not surprising though that the me-oriented, entitlement people would use that phrase in the Constitution to justify actions which target their particular (selfish) ''needs'' (desires).

    It seems reasonable to me that if you want to understand how a document is to be interpreted, you should go its author(s).

    • guest

      The authors also held slaves, which has since been outlawed. Women couldn't vote and even children were considered as property. Most people would rather not go back to those older "interpretations."

      • relayman

        Well they didn’t have air conditioning
        either. No one ever claimed that the
        Framers were perfect angels. As for
        slavery being outlawed, that depends on your definition. Some would call the perpetual indebtedness to
        the guvmint in the form of an abusive Marxist income tax slavery for
        starters. The list is very long of the guvmints
        encroachments against the basic liberties of the people.

      • LeSellers

        All your "points" are wholly beside the point.

        Not all the authors held slaves. And those who did were convinced that slavery was immoral, even to the point of including the end of slavery in the Document, and recognizing that it was illogical to count slaves one way for representation and another for taxation. (The "three-fifths" clause made, e.g., South Carolina less well represented in the House than if the salves had been counted the same as non-slaves, and more taxed than she would have been and they not been counted at all. In addition, the wording "three-fifths of all other persons" makes it clear that the "authors" recognized slaves as "persons" and not something less.

        Women couldn't vote but the Constitution did not deny them the vote. It said nothing about voting until the XV amendment. Nor does it mention children or women as "property". Yet, under its benighted glow, we managed to eliminate both slavery and the imagined bars to human dignity for women and children. (One wonders, however, just what "rights" a child has when he is totally dependent on his parents or guardians for the necessities of life. If dependent, what rights do the guardians have over his actions, since they, not the child, are responsible for the results of those acts?)

        We ought never forget that "rights" are not solitary. They are inseparably attached to "responsibilities", and cannot exist alone. So, while a child is not given unlimited freedom (nor is any person except a tyrant) , he is not held accountable for his acts until the coincidental accountability attaches.

        The fact that men hold ideals greater than they live, or even greater than they can live, does not mean those ideals are invalid. Rather the contrary: it means they lead men to live ever higher and better lives. If our ideals were mere reflections of everyday life, there would be no progress, for men could not envision the very changes you imply are higher than those

        • johnfromjersey

          The people who dream of founding the "Star Trek" utopian society leave when they realize that that society has vastly more responsibilities than we do. You can't just create laws and bills that will change what humans are, down deep, we just want freedom.

  • graz

    Effective Jan 1, 2013, aspirin will be taxed under the
    Obama-Care program.

    The explanation was that they are white and work. No
    other reason was given!

    • Screeminmeeme

      graz.....LOL...Good one!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_O24NYT5HOQNDEJ3TUT5QOTLOF4 TM

    Liberalism is a disease and all those who voted for obama have it, the only cure is for them to die and may they do it ASAP.

  • forrealcommonsense

    It's game over when you have a "democracy" not a Republic & more takers than givers. There is evil in charge & many just can't see it because they were not taught fundamental principles of economics. Corrupt politicians have co-operated with those intent on destroying this country.

    • http://twitter.com/lucitee4 Luci Tomlin

      But doing things according to our Constitution such as governing with decency, morals, honesty, compromise, was NOT the objective of this irratic, incompetent, bunch of Radical Factions! The ONLY AGENDA for which HE was created was to obligate and over-burden our Country, "invade" our "internal, VITAL organs", devour them in order to KNOW how to render us with no options to challenge them. They NEED our wealth, assets, property and especially our natural resources in order to accomplish the ULTIMATE goal! Of desolving, weakening, and restricting every right, benefit, and Constitutional Law to oust us from our own Country! Every person in the world KNOWS he did not get into our White House by the usual procedure that EVERY other President has been required to follow! He side-stepped every normal rule to qualify for President! Using ever devious means it took to "Buy" him in! Forged COLB, an ALIAS in Chicago, filched SS# he used until '09 when questions about it kept cropping up! Where did he get the "NEW ONE" he is using now? We will NEVER know! Every time someone asks a perfectly legitimate question, his "creaters" started the "you are all racist" mantra! So instead of insisting on HONEST answers, Conservatives back down! Consequently, we have a President who is a laminated surface version of a counter top! Underneath is pressed plywood that swells and peels when it becomes "wet"! Your beautiful countertop now ruins the entire kitchen because the "hidden" foundation underneath was cheap, can't withstand pressure and is expected to do more than it was created for! The "base" of the cabinets should NOT have been ignored! THAT is what holds up everything else and makes it durable! Underneath this good-looking, charismatic,articulate, Orator, who has a false and faulty foundation!

      • relayman

        Oh, very well put. I don't consider zerobama an articulate orator. That is more of the veneer. I have seen "articulate orators" and they do not require teleprompters when talking to third graders.

    • guest

      Actually the majority of "capitalists" sold out and became communists when they moved their operations to Red China. Those traitor CEO's were "takers" when they failed to recognize or respect American interest in their enterprise. Russia put a billionaire in prison for selling off what their government deemed "national assets."

      • forrealcommonsense

        They were progressive liberals taking advantage of the capitalist system in a country founded on Christian principles.

      • relayman

        Guest, why do you think the majority of those “capitalists”
        moved their operations overseas. Did it
        ever occur to you that over taxation and over regulation is a big factor in
        relocating these businesses. There is
        also the union demands that far exceed worker productivity. With all this working against them, in order
        to remain in business, these “capitalist” have to relocate. One big problem with you liberals is that you
        always look at the symptom of a problem, not the major cause that is staring
        you in the face.

  • KBreedlove50

    At least by favorable referencing Paul Krugman you know that this guy's an idiot (just like Dr. Paul).

  • Liberty Rock

    Alll linerals Should be expelled out of America stripped from their US Citizenship along with their immediate family & be flown to Communiist China Or Cuba & eat Crap

  • jimpeel

    “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
    -- James Madison

    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
    -- Thomas Jefferson 1798

    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
    -- Frederic Bastiat

    • guest

      Why didn't Bastiat include bankers among the plunderers? Charging what the market will bear isn't plundering? Landlords, speculators who profit from the pain of others, aren't parasites or plunderers? Just because we allow something to be legal doesn't mean it's moral. Ah, but conservatism doesn't go very deep.

      • relayman

        Bastiat talked about the guvmint’s proper role in preventing plunder rather than participating in it. I think you missed the point. When guvmint plunders, it does as much as any other criminal or criminal enterprise by justifying its actions both “legally” and “morally.” But you are right about one thing, just because guvmint’s declare something legal does not necessarily make it moral. As I recall that is what Nuremburg restated.

        • jimpeel

          It has been said many times that Hitler never broke a single law. His laws were legal; but they were immoral on even the basest level.

      • LeSellers

        "Plunder", as Bastiat used the word, means organized, legalized theft. There are probably bankers, landlords, and "speculators" who "plunder". But, by far, the worst plunderers are politicians and bureaucrats. They plunder
        "on behalf" of those who vote to install them as thieves (keeping a huge potion for themselves, btw). Moreover, they do it with the force of the law behind them: well armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges who can kill with impunity.

        Government is, after all, a jealously guarded monopoly on the use of lethal force. All laws are backed by that force (or its very real threat), and if you resist long and strenuously enough, a library fine is a capital offense. (Before any law gets passed, or even proposed, we ought ask the question: "Is this worth killing someone over?")

        Charging what the market will bear is far from "plunder". If the market will "bear it", the price being charged is exactly the price two people decide will make them each better off than any other thing they could do at the time with the resources available to either of them.

        Landlords, and speculators use their resources to make other people better off then they would otherwise be. Without landlords, many people would be without housing of any sort. The price of the rent they charge assures that their housing stock will be used in the best way by the best people. When they charge too little, bad people waste housing that good people could use to better advantage. ("Rent control" always leads to corruption and destruction and less housing than would exist without it n less housing means that rents will rise in some way.)

        Renters who do not respect their landlords' property and who damage it are immoral louts with no honor who deserve to be homeless (and I sincerely wish they were).

        Speculators assure that there will be oil (or whatever commodity) available when people need it.

        Your message indicates that you have no knowledge of markets and how things get form "raw materials" in "some faraway place" to you in a form you can use. Either that, or you are seriously breaking the tenth commandment: thou shalt not covet. Envy and covetousness are some of the worst sins. If you do not believe in "sin" (and many fools exist who do not), then recognize that they contribute to waste, to riot, and to the destruction of civility.

        Mr. O'bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

        • johnfromjersey

          Well said!

        • jimpeel

          Thanks. You saved me a lot of keystrokes and, trust me, I'm no typist.

  • StephenFR

    Hear is what I always tell the progressives that say that welfare is in the constitution. If the intent to redistribute wealth as the welfare system does was the idea of the founders of our country, then why was there none prior to 1935? Really pisses them off.

    • guest

      Well something had to be done to fix the economy after banksters and investors nearly killed the goose (first "Great Depression.) We cannot afford to allow amoral greedsters to keep exploiting the system for their own self-aggrandizement. The repeal of Glass-Steagal is what brought on this current recession (People who don't learn from history, or in this case are too young to remember or learn from it.) Things change, often necessarily so.

      • Coda

        Did you also know that FDR's democratic policies extended the Great Depression. You wanna whine about how other people have more money than you becaise its "not fair". Thats called an excuse. Let me tell you something. If liberals worked as hars as they dis making excuses they'd be richer than the so called "evil conservatives" who are evil because they workes hard for there money and didn't give it to the lazy bum. You so quick to call for inequality and redistribution of wealth when you dont realize yourmaking America more inequal. Your calling for an inequal distribution of WORK. LET ME TELL YOU IT AIN' HARD TO NAKE MONEY IF YOU REALLY WANT IT. america was buikt by GO-GETTERS. MADE by Go-getters. In the last 40 years there were 6 years when the budget was balanced. 4 under president clinton. However what they dont tell you is that it was balanced because a republican congress and house of representatives were in charge. They proposed things that Demorcrat clinton relectantly signed and because of them w had a balanced budget.

      • StephenFR

        Boy, you must be a product of public education.

        First, all through history there have been recessions and depressions. In economics it is referred to as the cyclical nature of the economy. It goes up and then down and then back up again.

        Second, contrary to what you learned in PS 27, it was not in fact the capitalists that caused the crash of 1929, it was the fact that the stock exchange allowed anyone to buy on margin. I am assuming that you have some idea what buying on margin is. Well, there was a downturn in the market, not a plummet, just a fair sized down turn. Well, when that happens, a lot of banks and brokerages called in the margin accounts so that they could maintain liquidity. The problem was that ma and pa Kettle did not have enough money to make good an their margin accounts. That created a panic and that caused the crash. J.P. Morgan got out of the market a few weeks before the crash. He was asked how he knew. He said that the guy who shines his shoes was giving him stock tips and buying on margin. He knew that it was time to get out.

        Lastly, The repeal of Glass-Steagal was not what caused the current crash. What cause the crash was in fact the Community Reinvestment act that forced banks and other lending institutions to issue sub-par loans. This, by the way was an act that the banks bitterly opposed because it forced them to make loans that they knew were no good. This legislation forced banks to figure out a way to get rid of loans that they knew were no good, but were required to make. Now here is why it was not Glass-Steagal. That act prevented banks from acting as a securities broker. It did not however prevent either 1) their buying and selling securities for the purposes of the bank, it just did not allow them to "retail" to their customers. and 2) Banks before and during G-S bought and sold securities, they just had to hire a securities broker to do it who was not an employee of the bank. In other word, all the repeal did was get rid of a middleman. What happened in the current situation is the economy slowed down just enough that some people who should not have had loans in the first place defaulted on those loans. There were enough defaults that it had an impact on the market which further slowed the economy. This of course caused more defaults. And down we went. Here is the deal. It was not the "greedy" bankers. They did not want to make the sub-prime loans in the first place, they are in business to make money. If your loans default, you do not make money. It is this "fairness" doctrine that the democrats keep harping on. They think that they have good intentions and that is enough for them. They are warned what will eventually happen and they say, oh, you're just a greedy conservative. When in fact it comes to pass, and the housing bubble was in fact forecast when they passed the Community Reinvestment act, the dems just blame it on those greedy rich capitalist and the banks when in fact it was the legislation that they passed. Now here is why Clinton said it was G-S. The Community Reinvestment Act was legislation that was put forward by Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton doubled down on it. So of course he is going to find something else to blame. Problem is, that there is nothing in G-S that would have prevented the crash.

      • freedomringsforall

        Wow; so you are suggesting that it took them from the 1st great depression in 1807 to 1935 to take action against what you are basically calling the gangsters of private enterprise (by use of the sters suffix). :)

        Well, if there were or are any sters in the private sector they should be weeded out as well as any sters that might be in the public sector.

        You use an interesting phrase, "learn from history".

        I guess we all could learn a little more from history.

        There don't seem to be enough experts or even real readers and thinkers in that department any more, or philosophy either.

        It is also interesting that you use the word greed.

        It seems that history teaches us that when governments and economic systems are set up to try to do away with greed that they always collapse into killing frenzies.

        It seems that history also teaches us that when governments and economic systems recognize the natural human nature of want, need, or greed (one person thinks we should survive on one loaf of bread a day and another believes we should have two can be described by different people as want, need, or greed) yet disallow basic lawlessness such as fraud, stealing, murdering etc. and all their variants that those nations and regions have always flourished freely the best.

        It does seem that all of history teaches us that with controls over basic lawlessness that the natural individual want, need, greed, is a very useful thing in the grand scheme of things.

        With the controls against basic lawlessness in place everyone's individual greed across the entire society tends to level or convert the societal playing field into a more balanced give and take that in general terms tends to serve everyone's common interest, common good, common welfare (how ever you wish to phrase it).

        Like the invisible hand at work across a society.

        As in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:

        By the time he wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Smith had studied the economic models of the French Physiocrats for many years, and in this work the invisible hand is more directly linked to the concept of the market: specifically that it is competition between buyers and sellers that channels the profit motive of individuals on both sides of the transaction such that improved products are produced and at lower costs. This process whereby competition channels ambition toward socially desirable ends comes out most clearly in The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 7.

        The excerpt is from Wikipedia probably not considered the most conservative or accurate resource around, but quick and accurate enough on this.

        Those who rail against government forms as Republics and economies as capitalism remind me of a quote from Winston Churchill that basically says Democracy is the worst form of government except all others we've tried (our Republic being a form of representative democracy).

        It seems that to isolate a capitalist Republic, as ours is supposed to be, you can pick at a lot of flaws but when fairly stacked up against any other government and economic combination in all history it shines like that beacon of hope to all those in the world who have loved freedom and opportunity.

        That is why people all over the world are still clamoring to get into this greatly criticized country.

        No utopian king or Queenship, nor any dictatorship, nor any Marxist, nor Socialist, nor Communist dream set up as a nation or territory has ever come close in freedom and opportunity to this great experiment in capitalist representative democracy called the Republic of the United States of America.

  • Liberty Rock

    Alll liberals Should be expelled out of America stripped from their US Citizenship along with their immediate family & be flown to Communiist China Or Cuba & eat Crap

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/2BZHO5ROO7QRRX6CJJJEBUBQPY Tim

    It is important to realize that general welfare would apply to national disasters or aid to truly disabled individuals, but today, the welfare is carefully targeted for voter appeal and is unconstitutional.

    • guest

      The jobs have largely flown the coop. "General Welfare" would now include a large and very vulnerable segment of the population. Maybe we should pass a law that prevents US manufacturers from moving manufacturing assets overseas, albeit a little late, the horse being out of the barn; but I think Red China has some similar set of policies in place.

      • relayman

        Maybe too they should pass a law that you should work at least 12 hours a day for little or no pay before you demand that of others. You have no respect for the property of others or any concept of liberty.

    • relayman

      While maybe noble, none of that is in the Constitution. Do you believe in the rule of law or not? Now if you want to do that, fine, amend the Constitution. I have no problem with that.

  • chetohimler

    General welfare was meant to have equal access to every individual regardless of race,color, state,"area" rural, city, suburb, religion etc. "Welfare is taken out of context in the since that it does not mean how an individual is doing "personally". Example: The governments, Fed, State and Local were/are to provide equal access to roads, bridges, water, utilities, sewage and an equal access to "infrustructure". Also in the case of a serious illness, such as a plague, it is the governments duty to protect all citizens by such measures as vaccinations or quarantine. Welfare is to mean that everyone has an equal opportunity and access to infrustructures that are built for everyone. Thus we are taxed on these survices. Citizens are able to use these infrustructure abilities to be free to provide for their own families "well-being" and success, on their own. This is where the democrats will use the term, " it all depends on what is...is". Liberals tend to turn words and meanings into what they foolishly pretend it means. And yes, we are all stupid not to argue, look them straight in the eye's and say...."That is not what the Constitution means". Welfare does not mean to provide for the lazy, don't even try, don't even learn english, don't even get your citizenship, let the government feed, house and clothe your ass...and then complain because you think its still not enough. If Liberals want to change the words around, to me welfare means I need a new car because the constitution says it has to look after my welfare.

  • guest

    The problem with neo-christians' opinions like Demar is he doesn't consider defending the rich as favoritism or as a particular/specific exception to the "general" welfare clause, never mind that the Bible OT says specifically that the rich oppress the poor, or that Jesus specifically hung out with and helped poor people. Bringing God's kingdom down to earth should not be defined as cementing for posterity. the attitudes or dubious values of the wealthy to which all must adhere. Rich people don't fall under the "general" welfare clause. Conservatives are free to differ, that's what policy issues are about. The country has changed a lot in many ways. To whom much has been given, much is expected. Behaving like selfish pigs or insufferable play-babies isn't your purpose on planet earth.

    • relayman

      What the hell are you talking about? Your attempting stringing together Bible
      verses like a Hallmark greeting and somehow trying to connect them to the “general
      welfare” clause while slamming the rich causes me to ask, did you get hold of
      some bad crack? This is mind numbing
      dival.

    • johnfromjersey

      You don't really want to bring Jesus or the Bible into this Mr. guest, do you?
      Because what Jesus was saying, at that time, wasn't that they were to strive to get rich on this earth, but to be the kinds of citizens who store up riches in Heaven.

  • Raymond

    The United States of America passed away on November 6, 2012 with an almost silent whimper. She was 236 years old. The grand old lady died of neglect, stupidity, arrogance and pure abuse at the hands of both her leaders and its ignorant populace. She will be survived by the Socialist Democratic Republic of Obamerica or SDRO.

    Also killed in this same massive, catastrophic, progressive wreck were personal freedoms, American values, exceptionalism, The Constitution, economic growth, conservatism, fiscal sanity, American unity, free markets, life's sanctity, marriage between man and woman, Republicanism, free will, self-reliance and many more are so mutilated as to be unrecognizable any longer.

    Born: July 04, 1776
    Died: November 06, 2012..

  • Raymond

    The $50 Lesson

    Recently, while I was working in the flower beds
    in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat
    as they returned home from walking their dog.

    During our friendly conversation, I asked their
    little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.

    She said she wanted to be President some day.

    Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing
    there, so I asked her, "If you were President what
    would be the first thing you would do?"

    She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all
    the homeless people."

    Her parents beamed with pride!

    "Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't
    have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her.

    "What do you mean?" she replied.

    So I told her, "You can come over to my house and
    mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and
    I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery
    store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you
    can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new
    house."

    She thought that over for a few seconds, then she
    looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why
    doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the
    work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

    I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

    Her parents aren't speaking to me.

    • johnfromjersey

      That, my friend, has made my day, thanks.

  • Raymond

    Math Teacher Arrested!

    A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International
    airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a
    protractor, a compass, a slide-rule and a calculator. At a morning press
    conference, Attorney General Eric Holder said he believes the man is a
    member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. He did not identify the man, who
    has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.
    'Al-Gebra is a problem for us', the Attorney General said. 'They derive
    solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search
    of absolute values.' They use secret code names like 'X' and 'Y' and refer
    to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined that they belong to a
    common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every
    country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'There are 3 sides
    to every triangle'.

    When asked to comment on the arrest, President Obama said, 'If God had
    wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, he would have given us
    more fingers and toes.' White House aides told reporters they could not
    recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the President. It is
    believed that another Nobel Prize will follow.

    • relayman

      From the looks at the economy and this regime’s stupid
      proposals, I’d agree that al-gebra is a very real problem. Evidently those x and y codes don't decipher to well on a teleprompter.

    • johnfromjersey

      Is this Alan Alda?

  • jsmithcsa

    Actually, I have no problem with general welfare, that being things used for all of us like highways and lighthouses. On the other hand, misusing the term to mean what I call "specific welfare" -- that is a check given to someone -- does not seem to me to be constitutional. Why else would the author of the Constitution have written, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." (James Madison, 1794)

    • relayman

      Agree totally. You and I must have the same version of the Constitution.

  • coconuisse

    I'm thinking that the founding fathers should have anticipated today's liberal and instead of using the term "general welfare" they should have used something more generic as the liberals understand "welfare" to mean "liberal gravy train", NOT "concern for those less fortunate than we are".

  • freedomringsforall

    We need to get back to the original meaning of the Constitution.

    We need to get these commie, fascist, Islamic terrorist codling bunch of scum out of power in these United States.

    Then we need to work our bums off to get our freedoms and rights restored.

    We are the only hope left for this planet and for all those down trodden and less fortunate to look to as their hope for true freedom and all that it brings.

    We must stay united and take the hope, the light, and the right of freedom to every last corner and dark alley and to every last soul in this world.

    Those who rail against government forms as Republics and economies as capitalism remind me of a quote from Winston Churchill that basically says Democracy is the worst form of government except all others we've tried (our Republic being a form of representative democracy).

    It seems that to isolate a capitalist Republic, as ours is supposed to be, you can pick at a lot of flaws but when fairly stacked up against any other government and economic
    combination in all history it shines like that beacon of hope to all those in the world who have loved freedom and opportunity.

    That is why people all over the world are still clamoring to get into this greatly criticized country.

    No utopian king or Queenship, nor any dictatorship, nor any Marxist, nor Socialist, nor Communist dream set up as a nation, or territory, or whatever has ever come close in freedom and opportunity to this great experiment in capitalist representative democracy
    called the Republic of the United States of America.

  • SIR JAMES

    Don't know why this is so difficult for some people to understand OH WAIT they went to a government school. Read and taught from socialist texts by unionized lazy socialist teachers. Placed in overcrowded rooms filled with the offspring of GODLESS parents to busy trying to make a few dollars from a bunch of government thieves who sit on their scheming fat behinds more concerned about their next act of perversion than doing their sworn duty to GOD and America>

  • cyber_hackster

    The Government OWNS all the money - They decide how much they will let you keep....

  • Batman

    Someone in a bus station and sick spreading TB is a hinder to all of us thus the general welfare clause applies..