• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the US Constitution Say "Provide for the General Welfare""?

Does the US Constitution say Provide, Promote (or both) for the General Welfare

  • Total voters
    44
Who's got the song in their head, now!

 
Why would a person want to promote something that they would not provide?
 
political_debater said:
It says "provide for the general welfare" but if your asking if this justifies that public programs like welfare or national health-care are constitutional there's nothing in the constitution that supports this. Because this term will be thrown around to try and support there cause.

The Founders did not dare to leave the phrase “general welfare” for future power grabbers, as there is no telling what they could do with this vague concept if left undefined. They understood that it is the nature of all governments to grow. As a result, clauses 2-9 list 14 powers that comprise “general welfare.” Five deal with borrowing money, regulating its value, and dealing with counterfeiting. The other nine powers include naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.”

During the founding, some Anti-Federalists were concerned that this clause “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.” But James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” explained very clearly that it granted no power to Congress. If the “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power to promote the general welfare, then why specifically list the other powers in Article I, such as the power to establish post offices and post roads, or to coin money? Wouldn’t it be redundant to list them?

In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I."

I hope this the definition and meaning of "provide
Click to expand...

Why are the founders the end all (assuming we are not talking of hamilton)? Should I envoke a modern judges opinion on the clause? General welfare is a very broad term, and up for interpretation. By saying there is nothing in the constitution to support health care or welfare you are simply begging the question, since that would require an interpretation of the general welfare cause to begin with.
 
Joe Steel said:
Nonsense. Providing for the welfare of individuals promotes the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Providing the general welfare creates an entitlement state, decreases ambition, increases beureucracy, and eliminates liberty.
 
Joe Steel said:
As you noted, the phrase is vague. This is deliberate to ensure the government could act in all cases. However, the Founders knew reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about which legislation would serve the General Welfare. To ensure Congress would have the so-called enumerated powers, they listed them.
Click to expand...
This is, of course, hooey. Under your unsupportable theory, all that is necessary are the first and last clauses of ArticleIS8; that thre are 16 additional clauses prove your theory unsound.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
If you are a corporate lobbyist they do mean the same thing.
Click to expand...
This does nothing to negate what I said, and thus, what I said stands.
There is a clear and distinct difference between promoting something by ensuring the freedom to do it, and providing the means to do that something; on no way does the former necessitiate the latter.
 
Goobieman said:
This does nothing to negate what I said, and thus, what I said stands.
There is a clear and distinct difference between promoting something by ensuring the freedom to do it, and providing the means to do that something; on no way does the former necessitiate the latter.
Click to expand...

Okay, but just because you said so.:roll:
 
The general welfare quote seems to be the most controversial line for all Constitutional discussions with respect to contemporary politics, but whether the line was actually to provide or to promote actually seems to be quite irrelevant, because I don't believe that either one would give the Federal Government more or less authority from the original Constitution. People forget that the general welfare quote was made in the Preamble. The Preamble says that the Federal Government must establish Justice, but it can't just overrule a decision by a State Supreme Court just because it felt that it wasn't establishing Justice. The Federal Government must try to meet the prospects of the Preamble, but it should only do so in the manner allowed by the enumerated powers in the Constitution or by Amendments, if they should get passed. That is the reason that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution I believe, said the following:

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Show how you are right.
Click to expand...
I did. Try reading what I said, and then look up the words "promote" and "provide".
After you do that, show how the willingness to promote something necessarily requires the willingness to provide means to that something.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
I did. Try reading what I said, and then look up the words "promote" and "provide".
After you do that, show how the willingness to promote something necessarily requires the willingness to provide means to that something.
Click to expand...

When children in school are promoted from one grade to another they are provided new text books.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
When children in school are promoted from one grade to another they are provided new text books.
Click to expand...

That's the best you can do? Thanks for the laugh.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
When children in school are promoted from one grade to another they are provided new text books.
Click to expand...

I literally laughed out loud when I read this! LOL!
 
NolaMan said:
Article I Section 8:



I don't think anyone can argue that this phrase, also found in the Constitution, says "promote" rather than "provide."

Not that I love the idea of welfare programs, but the argument that the Constitution does not say "provide" is a losing battle in my mind.
Click to expand...

And you have to read the entirety of Article I, Section 8 as a whole. That section of the Constititon LIMITS the powers of Congress and simply DOES NOT ALLOW the Congress to have other powers outside of those listed.

And Art I, Section 8 does not allow the Congress to create a socialist welfare system.
 
Goobieman said:
I did. Try reading what I said, and then look up the words "promote" and "provide".
After you do that, show how the willingness to promote something necessarily requires the willingness to provide means to that something.
Click to expand...

How do you differentiate? Is the education system promoting or providing for the general welfare? Or is this another thing that needs interpretation?
 
drz-400 said:
How do you differentiate?
Click to expand...
The context of the conversation does a pretty good job of that, which is whyt LA's statement was absurdly laughable.
There's no way to argue that if you want to promote something that you -must- then provide the means for that something.
 
Goobieman said:
The context of the conversation does a pretty good job of that, which is whyt LA's statement was absurdly laughable.
There's no way to argue that if you want to promote something that you -must- then provide the means for that something.
Click to expand...

Every time I was promoted in the service, I was provided with a raise in pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom