Replies

You know, I was thinking about the various arguments advanced by the LibTards for their various robbing hood schemes to redistribute wealth and set up a permanent power base of dependent Americans who can be relied upon to vote for the authors of their free health care, free housing, free education, free money, etc.

One of the arguments is that the constitution has broad language about “providing for the general welfare”. Of course, there are clear originalist interpretations that that clause is not meant to give the 535 thieves in Washington or the one in the White house free reign to carry out their plans for lifetime job security.

But there is a simpler argument that, even a liberal could understand (since they obviously can’t understand Madison, Jefferson or Hamilton). If “the general welfare” is to be understood to mean anything that would promote general welfare, the concept is so elastic that it is limitless, encompassing even the most grandiose schemes. After all, if the “rich” could be taxed to support everyone else, by simple math, you are promoting the “general welfare”. The rich, being in the minority, the result is the majority of people are better off if the rich are paying for everything. On average, the whole society is better off and presto! you’ve promoted the general welfare.

Now what this means is that, as Rush likes to say: why not a minimum wage of $100 an hour or $1,000? Or why not provid a car or a house for everyone? Why not the latest electronics and so on? After all, if the rich would pay for everyone else to have these things, most of society would be doing a lot better.

Simply put, it is an ad absurdum argument. One can see that the same logic that supports the Obamacare monstrosity can be made to support anything and everything. If that were true, then the clause is nonsense. Ergo, that cannot be the correct reading and Obamacare has no constitutional basis in the general welfare clause.