I do not think they had welfare checks back in thise days. They sure did not have food stamps or AFDC. I think they meant secure Borders.
Nice post! I shall add your analysis to my ammo supply for the holiday family arguments ahead . . ,
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
IMHO, there are no better explanations and clarifications on this question from the men who framed our documents of liberty than this from Madison and those provided by MosesKnows in Post #11 from Thomas Jefferson.
Blackbart.223 also has made an apt observation: "You don't throw off one yoke to assume another."
The Founders' 'world view' included an honest assessment of human nature, especially the human tendency to abuse power, delegated or assumed. They recognized their own imperfection, as well as that of those they would elect to represent them under the new Constitution's provisions. For that reason, they explicitly wrote a "people's" Constitution limiting, dividing, separating, checking and balancing those powers. As an added protection, they made "the People's" Constitution amendable only by the Constitution's own provision in Article V--requiring "the People's" participation in any changes to be made. No Constitutional Amendment, authorized under Article V, has been passed to expand the definition of "general welfare."
Was the Founders' understanding of human nature correct? Over time, have those entrusted with power abused that power?
Given Madison's and Jefferson's explanation, was any subsequent abuse of power because of a lack of clear explanation by the brave revolutionaries whose passion was liberty?
Clearly, those who wished to expand the powers of government for their own political purposes have been disingenious in their pretense that the Founders intended for one set of imperfect people in the society to possess the power to make and pass laws to "take" the earnings of the likewise imperfect people they represent under the guise of "helping" another set of people--all a simple vote-buying scam designed to accumulate even more power to themselves!
"The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of property] and a community of goods [common ownership] are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional. - Samuel Adams
"Our Ageless Constitution", a 1987 Volume which was recently reprinted and is available here contains an essay on Pages 110-116, entitled "Limited Spending and Taxing Powers and 'Small, Frugal Government' (Jefferson). In that comprehensive essay, constitutional scholars trace the 200-year departure from the principle intended to secure liberty and prevent the kinds of runaway taxing and spending by which the current Administration, and those preceding it, have been and are enslaving future generations.
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.
"provide for the common defence" does not mean provide for individual defence, and indeed courts have repeatedly decided that government employees (including military and law enforcement) are not required to defend individual citizens, and cannot be held responsible for refusing to do so.
Likewise, "promote the general Welfare", does not mean promote individual Welfare, but here the lefties, statists, and Marxists rant that the opposite is true and the US must guarantee the welfare of every citizen or even better every human, animal, plant, and rock in the universe.
In the socialist universe, the same word will have opposite meanings even if it appears twice in the same sentence, and those meanings will be what the lefty says they mean.
At the point of a gun.
Thanks for inviting me to this thread. As someone with a “graduate Political Science degree” I should yield to your wisdom and the wisdom of those who understand our Founders were seeking to limit infringements on liberty, not destroy liberty with unlimited power to government.
Even the Founders couldn't imagine the moronic intellectual level now fully attained by 99% of the citizenry.
All thanks to the Fabian-run government schools and the moronic NEA slaves who do the actual indoctrination of the government's children,
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Uhhh, let me think.
There is little that has been done by the Congress or the President or SCOTUS in the last nearly hundred years which has been lawful. Obama and the Dims just have all the power now. Until people decide that ALL of it, whether sponsored by Dims or Repubs., is illegal and wrong... it took the bailouts to really show me there is little important difference between the parties. The Repubs agree that THEY (the Congress) should change the healthcare system... They just disagree on the specifics. Obama and his minions are just so over the top rotten, that it is easy to get blinded. It’s wrong when “my side” does it too.