Skip to comments.Proposed General Welfare clause doctrine [Vanity]
Posted on 10/21/2011 10:27:01 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen
How's this for a doctrine of applying the General Welfare clause in justifying any control or money being spent by the Federal government ?
If the effort in question can be done at the local or State level, then it must be done at the local or State level - and must NOT be done at all by the Federal government.
Basically, if localities or States are doing it then the Federal government need not - and must not - do it.
Quite simply because the fact that localities or States are doing something proves that they can.
For roads, for example, this means coordinating where Route 80 meets between the New Jersey and Pennsylvania segments. Other than that, both states build and maintain their own section of Route 80.
For education, the Federal government does not possess anything unique that States or localities can't also acquire, so the Federal government is completely uninvolved.
I'd like to hear Presidential candidates express absolute support for this doctrine, including a vow and a plan to effect the retraction of the Federal government within the confines of the Constitution.
For those who support FR, click here to show it!
I'd like to see a unicorn, myself. I think I'm more likely than you to get my wish, though.
Taken literally, the General Welfare Clause requires all law-abiding adults to own firearms and ammunition and taking training to use them.
the preamble says “...promote the general welfare...” it doesn’t say “Provide”, ad in “provide for the common defense”
big diff between provision of something and it’s promotion.
I would go for removing those four words from the preamble immediately and then remove from the playing field every department, administration agency, etc that does not comport with those powers granted, specifically.
It would be sufficient merely to recognize that if a parent instructs a child to do X in order to do Y, that confers neither a general permission to do X, nor a general purpose to do Y, but only to do X insofar as is necessary to do Y, and only to do Y to the extent possible by doing X together with other expressly-authorized actions.
If a parent instructs a child to go to the store and buy some table decorations so the dining room will look nice for upcoming guests, that is not an instruction to go out to the store and buy anything the child sees fit, nor is it an instruction to do anything and everything that might help the dining room look nice for the upcoming guests. A child who claimed that he was told to buy a new XBox game, or to destroy his sister's toys which were sitting on the table, would likely be soundly scolded.
If parents can recognize that such behavior is inappropriate in a child, is there any reason the public shouldn't recognize that such behavior is in appropriate in a government?