"...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.
Definitely an excellent distinction to be made, as the preamble does, indeed, say "promote," not "provide." That said, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, does, in fact, say "provide;" but again, context is key: "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Notice, however, that the welfare is "general," and it is the welfare of the "United States," not of the people. It is conjoined with "Defence" in this instance, and that should say about all that is necessary about the "general Welfare."
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with that loose language later in the text. I wish the Founders had been more precise in using "promote" again, in Article I S8 C1, for the "general Welfare" part.
They were brilliant, but not infallible.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not infringed" would've been MUCH better, IMO, than "A well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state" because that part is wholly unnecessary to the meat of 2A. It's a right, and it shall not be infringed. They didn't need to explain themselves.
You'll note they didn't explain themselves in ANY of the other Bill of Rights rights. There's no "here's why" in ANY of the first Ten.
I mean, look at 4A. It starts right off with "The right...shall not be violated". Period. No "Because we suffered English tyranny..." or whatever. Just, "This is the right."
The messed up with 2A, and we're paying the price every day.
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.
Thank you John. And you are absolutely correct. Any money the government gives, it must first take from others, and the inefficiency with which government operates makes every dollar given cost at least twice as much as if individuals gave on their own.
Our modern times are different than the founding father's times and it is worth considering how we should change.
There is good value to basic support from a large entity (government) for those who truly aren't able take care of themselves. But our current approach is awful!
I disagree. Basic support from government equates to theft. Government must forcibly take from those who earn and give to those who don't; that is, as Ayn Rand termed it in "Atlas Shrugged" *looting*. Even when people were scraping to get by in the early-to-mid-1800s, government didn't step in (just watch some old episodes of Gunsmoke). *IF* (and that is a BIG if) government is going to step in in such instances (and it shouldn't), it should be from the State level, not the Federal level. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in such matters nor should it - it is not its purpose.
That is the point I was trying to convey with the last portion of MY comment. When ANY authoritative figure, be that government, an employer or a supervisor, gets out of the way and lets me (as an individual within certain parameters) "do my thing", I get a LOT more accomplished and I tend to enjoy it more, no matter how tedious the task may be.
If these sheeple were given the opportunity to shine on their own, they wouldn't want to go back to the controlled environment that has prevailed over the last 30+ years. But, then there ARE some that CAN NOT do for themselves. That is where assistance is truly needed. But those people are fewer than the current government wants to admit.
"But, then there ARE some that CAN NOT do for themselves. That is where assistance is truly needed." That is where religious organizations and secular charities shine, and they do a far better job of providing actual needs than government ever can. In addition, they are *voluntary*, thus is is not theft, and they are generally more efficient, so far less waste (more bang for every buck).
John, I should add that while I was trying to make that point, YOU were able to articulate it better. (I didn't get much good sleep last night, my brain is not firing on all cylinders this morning)
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?
Could not make a better argument. Even if left out of the preamble, the one place "general Welfare" appears in the body (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) is restrained by the context, as well as your most excellent logic.
"...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.
Definitely an excellent distinction to be made, as the preamble does, indeed, say "promote," not "provide." That said, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, does, in fact, say "provide;" but again, context is key: "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Notice, however, that the welfare is "general," and it is the welfare of the "United States," not of the people. It is conjoined with "Defence" in this instance, and that should say about all that is necessary about the "general Welfare."
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with that loose language later in the text. I wish the Founders had been more precise in using "promote" again, in Article I S8 C1, for the "general Welfare" part.
They were brilliant, but not infallible.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not infringed" would've been MUCH better, IMO, than "A well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state" because that part is wholly unnecessary to the meat of 2A. It's a right, and it shall not be infringed. They didn't need to explain themselves.
You'll note they didn't explain themselves in ANY of the other Bill of Rights rights. There's no "here's why" in ANY of the first Ten.
I mean, look at 4A. It starts right off with "The right...shall not be violated". Period. No "Because we suffered English tyranny..." or whatever. Just, "This is the right."
The messed up with 2A, and we're paying the price every day.
Totally agree.
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.
Thank you John. And you are absolutely correct. Any money the government gives, it must first take from others, and the inefficiency with which government operates makes every dollar given cost at least twice as much as if individuals gave on their own.
Our modern times are different than the founding father's times and it is worth considering how we should change.
There is good value to basic support from a large entity (government) for those who truly aren't able take care of themselves. But our current approach is awful!
I disagree. Basic support from government equates to theft. Government must forcibly take from those who earn and give to those who don't; that is, as Ayn Rand termed it in "Atlas Shrugged" *looting*. Even when people were scraping to get by in the early-to-mid-1800s, government didn't step in (just watch some old episodes of Gunsmoke). *IF* (and that is a BIG if) government is going to step in in such instances (and it shouldn't), it should be from the State level, not the Federal level. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in such matters nor should it - it is not its purpose.
That is the point I was trying to convey with the last portion of MY comment. When ANY authoritative figure, be that government, an employer or a supervisor, gets out of the way and lets me (as an individual within certain parameters) "do my thing", I get a LOT more accomplished and I tend to enjoy it more, no matter how tedious the task may be.
If these sheeple were given the opportunity to shine on their own, they wouldn't want to go back to the controlled environment that has prevailed over the last 30+ years. But, then there ARE some that CAN NOT do for themselves. That is where assistance is truly needed. But those people are fewer than the current government wants to admit.
"But, then there ARE some that CAN NOT do for themselves. That is where assistance is truly needed." That is where religious organizations and secular charities shine, and they do a far better job of providing actual needs than government ever can. In addition, they are *voluntary*, thus is is not theft, and they are generally more efficient, so far less waste (more bang for every buck).
John, I should add that while I was trying to make that point, YOU were able to articulate it better. (I didn't get much good sleep last night, my brain is not firing on all cylinders this morning)
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?
Could not make a better argument. Even if left out of the preamble, the one place "general Welfare" appears in the body (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) is restrained by the context, as well as your most excellent logic.