"...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."
Provide and promote are two very different things.
I can provide for my children - out of my pocket by paying for food, shelter, clothing - but only promote their general welfare by providing the means for them to do their homework but not by DOING their homework for them.
Another excellent article. I'm inclined to comment that people currently don't realize how much better the "general welfare" would be if government wasn't so bloated and individual people had more earnings (less taxation) and thus would be able to take care of themselves, their neighbors and their family.
What's generally PATHETIC in our society today is the mentality that people need an outside entity "taking care" of them by providing certain needs and even some WANTS. There are so many who believe that owning a CAR is a NEED. Granted, owning a car makes aspects of today's life more manageable, but it is still NOT a NEED. This spoiled brat mentality has lead to the outrageous growth in the general government and thus the tax rates which were NEVER INTENDED to be paid by the INDIVIDUAL. (If I remember correctly, ALL taxes collected by the STATES were to come from CONSUMPTION taxes. I may be wrong about that thinking, but...
The most pathetic part of the prevailing mentality today is how OBLIVIOUS people are as to just how much of their individual freedom they are giving away to those that do not truly care about their general welfare to begin with.
There are those who think that the General Welfare clauses are carte blanche for the government to do whatever it wants.
My rebuttals are usually of the form:
- the Preamble is just explanatory, and does not authorize or empower anything.
- "General Welfare" means the nation as a whole.
- if General Welfare meant carte blanche, what's the point of having the rest of the Constitution, with its enumerated powers, separation of powers, and prohibitions against anything not specifically enumerated?
"...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."
Provide and promote are two very different things.
I can provide for my children - out of my pocket by paying for food, shelter, clothing - but only promote their general welfare by providing the means for them to do their homework but not by DOING their homework for them.
I hate the Left.
Another excellent article. I'm inclined to comment that people currently don't realize how much better the "general welfare" would be if government wasn't so bloated and individual people had more earnings (less taxation) and thus would be able to take care of themselves, their neighbors and their family.
What's generally PATHETIC in our society today is the mentality that people need an outside entity "taking care" of them by providing certain needs and even some WANTS. There are so many who believe that owning a CAR is a NEED. Granted, owning a car makes aspects of today's life more manageable, but it is still NOT a NEED. This spoiled brat mentality has lead to the outrageous growth in the general government and thus the tax rates which were NEVER INTENDED to be paid by the INDIVIDUAL. (If I remember correctly, ALL taxes collected by the STATES were to come from CONSUMPTION taxes. I may be wrong about that thinking, but...
The most pathetic part of the prevailing mentality today is how OBLIVIOUS people are as to just how much of their individual freedom they are giving away to those that do not truly care about their general welfare to begin with.
There are those who think that the General Welfare clauses are carte blanche for the government to do whatever it wants.
My rebuttals are usually of the form:
- the Preamble is just explanatory, and does not authorize or empower anything.
- "General Welfare" means the nation as a whole.
- if General Welfare meant carte blanche, what's the point of having the rest of the Constitution, with its enumerated powers, separation of powers, and prohibitions against anything not specifically enumerated?