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.
I agree that the Founding Fathers would have had no idea of 'welfare' as we think of it today.
Still, pretty 'liberal' of them.
The Framers (the founders were another group of individuals) had no uniformed idea as to what the general welfare clause meant then as they don't now. The clause was given little attention and their is no record of debate or discussion regarding its meaning, it was only added to the Constitution because it was part of Madison's original Virginia Plan. What the clause meant was dependent upon the fifty five different perspectives of the 55 delegates to the convention, some like Hamilton would take the more expansive interpretation, other's like Madison would disagree.
The Framers (the founders were another group of individuals) had no uniformed idea as to what the general welfare clause meant then as they don't now. The clause was given little attention and their is no record of debate or discussion regarding its meaning, it was only added to the Constitution because it was part of Madison's original Virginia Plan. What the clause meant was dependent upon the fifty five different perspectives of the 55 delegates to the convention, some like Hamilton would take the more expansive interpretation, other's like Madison would disagree.
The Framers (the founders were another group of individuals) had no uniformed idea as to what the general welfare clause meant then as they don't now. The clause was given little attention and their is no record of debate or discussion regarding its meaning, it was only added to the Constitution because it was part of Madison's original Virginia Plan. What the clause meant was dependent upon the fifty five different perspectives of the 55 delegates to the convention, some like Hamilton would take the more expansive interpretation, other's like Madison would disagree.
Not a constitutional scholar, however...
The gist I've gotten from reading some of those delegates seemed to indicate to me the need for government to address issues pertaining to the whole country but which individuals (or states) could not manage discretely. Redirecting the flow of a river for maximal abundance as it were.
Provide for the common defense and welfare... at a time when the root causes of social ills were poorly understood or less scientifically based they were left philosophically guessing, musing perhaps over the seemingly unchanging nature of human beings. Is human nature timeless and unchanging? I think technology has changed us immensely (for better or worse, I'd say it's a mixed bag).
Great read that makes too much sense. The real problem is that most who need to read it aren't going to do so and that it does tell us just where the 17 enumerated powers were added to and why.
I read a couple of posts after yours and realized that the people involved had never read the part at the end of that link in Red. According to that man we might as well throw the document into somebody's field and forget about it.
What does this, the very first sentence of the Constitution of the United States of American, mean?
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.
Contrary to popular belief, the Preamble is not what you think it means.
Some quick background facts:
Declaration of Independence (1776) spells out two jobs:
1. Secure rights (endowed by our Creator), and
2. Govern those who consent.
If one hasn't given consent, all that is expected is assistance in securing rights.
Now, we know that "all American people" did not vote, nor ratify the U.S. Constitution, so "We the People of the United States" could not include those who could not give assent.
And pursuant to the Articles of Confederation, we know that the States united were separate from the United States, in Congress assembled.
Recapping, the "people" who DID give consent to be governed, by their submission to the U.S. Congress did ordain and establish the Constitution (a compact for specific performance) for the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled. However, if you examine the document, no one signed it - only witnessed it. (In contrast, the Articles WERE signed by duly authorized delegates). So the only people bound to the terms of the compact are those who swear an oath to it.
Here's something that might shake your belief system:
FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. ."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
Regardless of what you were taught, or led to believe, what can you glean from this excerpt?
The U.S. Constitution is a compact (contract) between the States United and the United States, in Congress assembled (a foreign corporation).
And PRIVATE PEOPLE are not party to the compact.
Are you one of the "People of the United States" (federal government) or are you one of the private people?
Remember, not all Americans could vote, nor ratify the U.S. Constitution. And if you remember your history, the Declaration of Independence states that job #1 = secure rights, and job #2 = govern those who consent.
Obviously NON VOTING AMERICANS DID NOT CONSENT TO THE USCON.
They are not, were not, and cannot be "parties to the compact".
What you may not have been taught in "Social Studies" / "History" class, is found in the first two clauses of the Articles of Confederation (1777).
Article I.The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America". Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Each State (not the state government) of the United States of America retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. And the United States, in Congress assembled exercises delegated powers - as a foreign corporation.
What delegated powers?
See Article 1, Section 8.
Now, if all U.S. citizens are SUBJECTS (see 14th amendment) of the foreign corporation based in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, then who are the sovereign people in the United States of America?
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
What "they" have carefully kept from you and 300 million Americans, is that if you're one of the sovereign PEOPLE (not subject citizens), you aren't theirs to rule. Government is YOUR servant, not your master. And their laws recognize that fact.
And if you substitute the correct terms into the Preamble, it sticks out clearly.
We the People (Officers) of the United States in Congress assembled (a foreign corporation), 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 (Future Congresses), do ordain (To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact) and establish this Constitution (compact) for the United States of America (States United).
Remember, the private people aren't party to the compact.
The State governments and the Federal government (foreign corporation) are the parties to the compact. Which might explain why 90% of the Constitution is internal re-organization, while the Articles are 90% delegation of powers.
Still not convinced that "private people" (aka "non-citizens") are secure in the USA?
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
The actual legal basis for the flim flam is pauperization via FICA.
Pre-1933 law references are filled with the horrors of pauperization (accepting charity from the public treasury).
FDR lied when he said "Relief" was not charity, but an "entitlement".
Coincidentally, he abolished the requirement for recipients to take the pauper's oath, formerly required for any recipient of public charity.
Basically, since 1935, the bulk of Americans have devolved to status criminals, eligible for charity from the public treasury, and have surrendered their birthright and endowment for the privileges granted by Big Brother.
There is no such thing as a "General Welfare Clause." What is erroneously referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" is actually Article I, Section, 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. The power granted to Congress is the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," for the purpose of "[paying] the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..." It was never intended to give Congress unlimited power to do whatever they desired in the name of the "General Welfare."
Quote:
If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.
The very fact that if such a clause existed it would completely render meaningless the entire US Constitution because Congress would be completely unrestrained and have limitless power to do whatever they please for the "General Welfare". Which should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that no such clause could possibly exist.
Specifically the preamble was meant to show what the New world is (at the time) supposed to be opposed to The Kings Rule. As the example since it's focused on by the OP I'll also focus on
Insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare
Domestic Tranquility: One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to the Constitution was unable, to intervene in quarrels between the states. The Shay's Rebellion was a huge factor. States had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states. Back in England at the time rebellions between communities was rampant. The more a community had the more they had to offer the throne hence more favor from the kings was received. The throne did little if anything to stop it, and in fact encouraged and profited from it.
Provide for the common defence: There's two things in that small space that are extremely relevant. The fist is that the King did not defend the country, instead the country defended the king. in other words the people did not fight for the good of the country they fought for the good of the king.
The second thing to note is that as a common defence was meant as a whole. The framers knew that for our then small country to survive it had to defend its self as one. The Massachusetts Militia had support from other states army's and vise verse.
Promote the General welfare:. Welfare in today's context means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the document.
Again referencing the king. Back in merry old England the welfare of the kings superseded the welfare of the people. People didn't benefit from their labor the king did. The framers wanted a people to build the economy and benefit from it. IE reap what we sowed.
We have to remember also that the framers could not see into the future. They were dealing with that times issues. That is not to say that the constitution is out dated. Anyone that says so is unamerican minded. It was specifically designed to grow and evolve with society. However the framers had no idea what tribulations we would face in the 20th and 21st centuries. They didn't imaging a conflict over the word God, or the thought of abortion, gay marriage, civil rights conflicts, ect ect. When you read the Constitution's preamble you must remember the era that it was written, apply their issues and their definitions and language style.
Something to also note if you are interested is that the document has many miss spelled words, including defence. This can be blamed on one man Jacob Shallus, a clerk for the Pennsylvania State Assembly.
Last edited by Dewmik; 10-06-2010 at 01:43 AM..
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.
