Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The oldest has a government assignment for his history class. One of the worksheets involves breaking down the Preamble of Constitution and defining each clause and it's purpose.

How would you define "promote the general welfare" and what is it's purpose?

WARNING:



Troll bait ahead.

Baldy wrote:WARNING:



Troll bait ahead.

I struggled with the answer too.

Slow day so far, the SS Palouse is out in the shallows...

*Its

Grizalltheway wrote:*Its

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:WARNING:



Troll bait ahead.

I struggled with the answer too.

Doesn't surprise me you struggled with it.

According to James Madison (the dude who wrote it), the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

Please refer to Federalist No. 41 if needed.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:


I struggled with the answer too.

Doesn't surprise me you struggled with it.

According to James Madison (the dude who wrote it), the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

Please refer to Federalist No. 41 if needed.

That was his opinion indeed. It wasn't necessarily shared.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Doesn't surprise me you struggled with it.

According to James Madison (the dude who wrote it), the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

Please refer to Federalist No. 41 if needed.

That was his opinion indeed. It wasn't necessarily shared.

I side with Hamilton (and Chief Justice Roberts) on this one.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
That was his opinion indeed. It wasn't necessarily shared.

I side with Hamilton (and Chief Justice Roberts) on this one.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Doesn't surprise me you struggled with it.

According to James Madison (the dude who wrote it), the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

Please refer to Federalist No. 41 if needed.

That was his opinion indeed. It wasn't necessarily shared.

Since he is the one who wrote the clause, his opinion is the only one that matters.
The current bastardized version of the "general welfare clause" dates to the 1930's.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
That was his opinion indeed. It wasn't necessarily shared.

Since he is the one who wrote the clause, his opinion is the only one that matters.
The current bastardized version of the "general welfare clause" dates to the 1930's.

Yeah, none of the other founders could have an opinion.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
That was his opinion indeed. It wasn't necessarily shared.

Since he is the one who wrote the clause, his opinion is the only one that matters.

Really? I guess you should let the SCOTUS know they should stop issuing opinions.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
That was his opinion indeed. It wasn't necessarily shared.

I side with Hamilton (and Chief Justice Roberts) on this one.

I, too , side with Hamilton. It's for promoting national benefit i.e. taxes, education, agriculture, etc...\\

Baldy, no one person wrote individual parts of the Constitution. Madison wrote the document that served as a model. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams are highly regarded as the primary authors of the document.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
That was his opinion indeed. It wasn't necessarily shared.

Since he is the one who wrote the clause, his opinion is the only one that matters.
The current bastardized version of the "general welfare clause" dates to the 1930's.

You don't know if that was solely his opinion. Perhaps him and Hamilton wrote it together (which might make sense b/c the biggest, opposing opinions on it come from them.)

Just a heads up, Jefferson (while the primary author of the Declaration of Independence) didn't write it alone and without any help BEFORE it went to convention.

Ibanez wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I side with Hamilton (and Chief Justice Roberts) on this one.

I, too , side with Hamilton. It's for promoting national benefit i.e. taxes, education, agriculture, etc...\\

Baldy, no one person wrote individual parts of the Constitution. Madison wrote the document that served as a model. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams are highly regarded as the primary authors of the document.

Jefferson had significant influence for sure (Bill of Rights), but he was in France serving as US Minister when the Constitution was written in 1787 and wasn't an active participant in the writing the Constitution.

In it's entirety, the Constitution is a document which limits the power of the federal government. What makes you or anyone else believe that one "general welfare" statement in itself goes against the grain of the rest of the document and grant Congress such enormous power to spend money the was it does now?

Baldy wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I, too , side with Hamilton. It's for promoting national benefit i.e. taxes, education, agriculture, etc...\\

Baldy, no one person wrote individual parts of the Constitution. Madison wrote the document that served as a model. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams are highly regarded as the primary authors of the document.

Jefferson had significant influence for sure (Bill of Rights), but he was in France serving as US Minister when the Constitution was written in 1787 and wasn't an active participant in the writing the Constitution.

In it's entirety, the Constitution is a document which limits the power of the federal government. What makes you or anyone else believe that one "general welfare" statement in itself goes against the grain of the rest of the document and grant Congress such enormous power to spend money the was it does now?

Jefferson and Adams were away, but they still had influence on it's draft.

And I don't believe the general welfare clause is carte blanche for the government. That's just a stupid assumption for anyone to make.

Baldy wrote: In it's entirety, the Constitution is a document which limits the power of the federal government. What makes you or anyone else believe that one "general welfare" statement in itself goes against the grain of the rest of the document and grant Congress such enormous power to spend money the was it does now?

Keep in mind that the Constitution was written primarily as a response to the Articles of Confederation that failed miserably - because the federal government was impotent. In the context of scrapping the Articles of Confederation - the primary role of the Constitution was to give more power (though, still limited power) to the federal government.

Ibanez wrote: Jefferson and Adams were away, but they still had influence on it's draft.

Sure...they were all probably e-mailing drafts back and forth until they got it all squared away.

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Jefferson and Adams were away, but they still had influence on it's draft.

Sure...they were all probably e-mailing drafts back and forth until they got it all squared away.

Sans email, their contributions and influence haven't been doubted or denied.

Ibanez wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Sure...they were all probably e-mailing drafts back and forth until they got it all squared away.

Sans email, their contributions and influence haven't been doubted or denied.

Agreed, they had plenty of influence. Heck, it's not like people only started talking about a consitution when everyone got together in Philly to agree on the thing. Most of the ideas had already been bandied about back and forth in the years leading up to the convention, and a lot of existing state constitutions were used as incubators of ideas and examples of what to do or not to do with the federal one. I never thought Adams had a huge imprint on the final thing, but clearly Jefferson did. Madison was like his "mini-me" for many years.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Sans email, their contributions and influence haven't been doubted or denied.

Agreed, they had plenty of influence. Heck, it's not like people only started talking about a consitution when everyone got together in Philly to agree on the thing. Most of the ideas had already been bandied about back and forth in the years leading up to the convention, and a lot of existing state constitutions were used as incubators of ideas and examples of what to do or not to do with the federal one. I never thought Adams had a huge imprint on the final thing, but clearly Jefferson did. Madison was like his "mini-me" for many years.

Very true.

Ibanez wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Sure...they were all probably e-mailing drafts back and forth until they got it all squared away.

Sans email, their contributions and influence haven't been doubted or denied.

No way...Al Gore hadn't yet been invented, Bell wasn't even a boy, Ben Franklin hadn't perfected the post office, the carrier pigeons were already going extinct, and ConSec was already secretly dosing up scanners.

Your theory is debunked.

Duh. It meant free cell phones, getting paid not to work, free healthcare, free prescription drugs, free community college, and all the other free shit our govt. hands out or wants to hand out.

Cluck U wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Sans email, their contributions and influence haven't been doubted or denied.

No way...Al Gore hadn't yet been invented, Bell wasn't even a boy, Ben Franklin hadn't perfected the post office, the carrier pigeons were already going extinct, and ConSec was already secretly dosing up scanners.

Your theory is debunked.

Al gore hadn't been invented???

AlGore didn't invent the Internet. The government and aliens did. Dummy.