General Welfare of the United States

[HelioPrime]

Ok so according to some members General Welfare in the US constitution means the entity of the US as a country, not as citizens.

My question is is this really so? Who decided this and was it a universal acceptance? Did all of the founding fathers mean to include only the welfare of the country and not the people?

Are there any court decisions or other insights that lead to where we currently should be standing on this question?

[Technosoul]

Do you include the amendments and bill of rights in that question?

It might be they concentrated more on the governing aspects of the country rather then what individual citizens might or might not do. At least at first.

First of all to insure that governments and religions do not gain total dominance over the will of the people and especially those in a minority. Then how to create rules that might be needed for the good of the country (meaning the people in the country) via a process of checks and balances and with the conscent and in-put of the citizens via the election of representives. With the hope of coming as close as possible to self-rule as composed and shaped by the desires of the citizenship.

And the right to enforce the will of the people where nonconformity attempts to distroy those things mandated by the public through the processes so mentioned above.

That is my guess.

The citizen collective and the country are basically one and the same thing.

Equality for all citizens and inalienable rights were assumed to be standards used as our foundation for a independant government and country. (note: back then slaves were not citizens but viewed as properties and to a lesser extent so were women and children and so "citizenship was something held by free men" before we extended that meaning to mean all human beings other then just the males living here. )

[HelioPrime]

**Just going off the strict words "General welfare of the United States Techno**

Looking for an interpretation of those words. But also where did that interpretation come from? Is there an official view of the text we should all view and how did that become the view? Was it in the founders writing, modern writing, court decisions, and perhaps also if it is a historical decision then shouldn't we update it?

Some people are very much set that the words meant the entity of the nation. I'm wondering where they draw that from and if the point is still valid today, tomorrow, or 100 years from now.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime Ok so according to some members General Welfare in the US constitution means the entity of the US as a country, not as citizens. My question is is this really so? Who decided this and was it a universal acceptance? Did all of the founding fathers mean to include only the welfare of the country and not the people? Are there any court decisions or other insights that lead to where we currently should be standing on this question?

What did the Cosntitution set out to achieve? ( hint, look in the preamble )

YouTube - The Preamble


That's basically what it's all about, in a nutshell.

[HelioPrime]

Your still avoiding my question:

General welfare: Does it mean just the entity of the nation and its organization or the people themselves?

And why? Who decided it and have any court decisions impacted or changed the meaning?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime Your still avoiding my question: General welfare: Does it mean just the entity of the nation and its organization or the people themselves?

I thought it answered your question quite well.


They sought to create, and preserve a system of government which would gauntee their freedom, and the freedom of their posterity from the type of tyrants they had just killed.

Quote by: HelioPrime And why?

So they wouldn't have to kill yet again.

Quote by: HelioPrime Who decided it and have any court decisions impacted or changed the meaning?

I think it's clear from the intent of the document. They didn't seek to limit peoples actions, they sought to limit governments actions, and limit governments power. They sought to remove the arbutrary decisions of a King, and replace it with a clearly worded document that showed no bias.


As far as court cases, I have to assume none exist, or the Liberals would throw it in our face at every opportunuty.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think it's clear from the intent of the document. They didn't seek to limit peoples actions, they sought to limit governments actions, and limit governments power. They sought to remove the arbutrary decisions of a King, and replace it with a clearly worded document that showed no bias. As far as court cases, I have to assume none exist, or the Liberals would throw it in our face at every opportunuty.

To be honest (and acknowledging this might be a personal attack) I think your avoiding a direct answer because you know such decision exist. As effective today the government DOES seem possess the power to raise money for the common welfare of the citizens and spend it as it sees fit as allowed by the people voted into office.

You seem to be ignoring any decisions you deem inappropriate to the founders original vision.

From which I draw the conclusion that universal healthcare may not be a perfect solution but its is a fully legal and acceptable method of spreading the burden of expensive healthcare across the nation so that EVERYONE benefits. And the government has the full power to enact this because the current interpretation of the constitution is the government has the power to affect the welfare of it's citizens using the resources of its own citizens.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime To be honest (and acknowledging this might be a personal attack) I think your avoiding a direct answer because you know such decision exist. As effective today the government DOES seem possess the power to raise money for the common welfare of the citizens and spend it as it sees fit as allowed by the people voted into office.

Heh, I gave you as direct an answer as I could possibly manage. I let those you asked about speak for themselves. ( Did you click the link? )

Quote by: HelioPrime You seem to be ignoring any decisions you deem inappropriate to the founders original vision.

No, I just don't follow court cases.( Unless it's in the papers, and everybody else is talking about it. ) I'm not a lawyer, or studying to be one.

Quote by: HelioPrime From which I draw the conclusion that universal healthcare may not be a perfect solution but its is a fully legal and acceptable method of spreading the burden of expensive healthcare across the nation so that EVERYONE benefits. And the government has the full power to enact this because the current interpretation of the constitution is the government has the power to affect the welfare of it's citizens using the resources of its own citizens.

A lot of you seem to draw that conclusion, but I still haven't seen any evidence for where you propose that this government is empowered in the manor you claim.


The preamble, and the Constitution are clear, the Founders intended to create a "Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Republic", had they intended to create a "commune", they would have articulated as much, as they were familiar with the concepts.


Freedom, liberty, individual rights, individual responsibility, equal representation, equal rights, those are concepts enshrined in the nations charter.


Where is "it takes a community to raise a child" articulated?


Where is "it takes a communty to educate my child" articulated?


Where is "the proletariate shall own the means of production" articulated?


Where is anything even remotely like that articulated?


Sorry, but I think your evidence is ( at best ) flimsy, and that you are taking great poetic license to even suggest that they advovated wealth redistribution. They, like us, were not comfortable with the idea of taking what is not thiers. They correctly labeled that concept as theft, or coercion, and sought to free themselves from those concepts.


Similar arguments were made against King George, and his forced tithe for the Church of England. Thus their intent to seperate Chruch from State.

[HelioPrime]

Heh, I gave you as direct an answer as I could possibly manage. I let those you asked about speak for themselves. ( Did you click the link? )

A video that states out the constitution? Is that your answer?

I've accepted the fact of what's written yet you seem to be on purpose in denial as to how that document is now interpreted.

For example the Supreme court has determined that the state has rights to property that overrule that of private citizens. Just off text that seems to be a violation of the text of the constitution as originally written.

My question is how do people decide to follow the original intention and not the legally decided new interpretation. What grounds do you stand on in your decision and why is your decision superior to the more recent updates determined by the legal courts of law?

No, I just don't follow court cases.( Unless it's in the papers, and everybody else is talking about it. ) I'm not a lawyer, or studying to be one.

^

Ok.... well that might just answer my question above. So You don't care to follow cases which gives the implication you don't care? If the modern courts decide the view the document in a different light you would rather ignore that and focus on your past version?


A lot of you seem to draw that conclusion, but I still haven't seen any evidence for where you propose that this government is empowered in the manor you claim.

The preamble, and the Constitution are clear, the Founders intended to create a "Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Republic", had they intended to create a "commune", they would have articulated as much, as they were familiar with the concepts.

Or rather they left to the tools allowing the nation to be updated with the times? Allowing the "commune" to become an addition to society as determined by legally elected leaders and supported in the courts.

If the process of creating this commune is undertaken under due process of law then are you still opposed to it?

Please explain why people should continue to follow the original intent rather than use the tools of modification given to them?

The fact the Founders GAVE the ability for the document to be modified and interpreted in a different light seems to clearly indicate they very correctly knew the world would eventually change and left the ability to change it.

Where is "it takes a community to raise a child" articulated? Where is "it takes a communty to educate my child" articulated? Where is "the proletariate shall own the means of production" articulated? Where is anything even remotely like that articulated?

Likewise where is it articulated such can never be undertaken?

The ability to change to adapt to a changing world was left to us. Is there anything to indicate they intended for us to never change? And if you feel that way then why did they leave that power those after them? If they really wanted as limited as possible a government for all time then why leave tools for changing that if need be?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime A video that states out the constitution? Is that your answer?

Uh, it was the preamble, and it answers your question directly. It articulates the intent of the creators when they drafted the Constitution.

Quote by: HelioPrime I've accepted the fact of what's written yet you seem to be on purpose in denial as to how that document is now interpreted. For example the Supreme court has determined that the state has rights to property that overrule that of private citizens. Just off text that seems to be a violation of the text of the constitution as originally written. My question is how do people decide to follow the original intention and not the legally decided new interpretation. What grounds do you stand on in your decision and why is your decision superior to the more recent updates determined by the legal courts of law?

Original intent was what was being addressed, I provided that answer.


As for how I defend that view, well, I share their vision, and the simple concepts behind those philosophies.


The truth is, I don't see how you can defend your views.


If you guys were on the level, there would be far less criticism from our side, but since Democrats can't seem to appeal to the very principles they espouse ( meaning appeal to the voters via referendum, or pass the laws through Congress in a legal manor ) I think I accurately refute your less than honest approach with the simple truths that the Founders thought "self evident".


I guess they would have a hard time imagining people becoming less educated, less adventurous, and less concerned about self determination, as those are all the things they sought in their day because they were denied those simple freedoms.

Quote by: HelioPrime Ok.... well that might just answer my question above. So You don't care to follow cases which gives the implication you don't care? If the modern courts decide the view the document in a different light you would rather ignore that and focus on your past version?

I just don't know of any court cases that address a similar issue.


Seeing as "financial responsibility" is, as far as I know, dictated by other factors, like age, paternity, property owner, vehicle owner, and such, I thought it was safe to assume any financial liability would be clearly articulated, or self evident. It is everywhere else.

Quote by: HelioPrime Or rather they left to the tools allowing the nation to be updated with the times? Allowing the "commune" to become an addition to society as determined by legally elected leaders and supported in the courts.

Too bad the people Liberals elect to office don't try that avenue occasionally. It might give them some credibility.


This is the conflict that draws me here to confront this ideology.

Quote by: HelioPrime If the process of creating this commune is undertaken under due process of law then are you still opposed to it?

A resounding yes, absofreakinglutely opposed.

Quote by: HelioPrime Please explain why people should continue to follow the original intent rather than use the tools of modification given to them?

Assuming you mean that, ideally, if your elected officials attempted the legal route to law making, then I would answer "for the obvious reasons pointed out here each day". There is no other way to describe this behavior, or the intent behind it. You are looking to absolve yourself, and your corporate overlords of the responsibility, and of having to providing a wage on which their workers can survive. But all in the name of fairness, right.


The whole experiment rests on a few simple concepts. If you fail to defend the original concepts, then the whole house of cards will come crashing down. ( Meaning the whole country, not just the capitalist system. )

Quote by: HelioPrime The fact the Founders GAVE the ability for the document to be modified and interpreted in a different light seems to clearly indicate they very correctly knew the world would eventually change and left the ability to change it.

Again, too bad Democrats, and Republicans have such a difficult time appealing to that democratic process to forward their agendas.

Quote by: HelioPrime Likewise where is it articulated such can never be undertaken?

It is not. That part is just supposed to be inferred, assuming you understood the principles to begin with.

Quote by: HelioPrime The ability to change to adapt to a changing world was left to us.

Indeed.

Quote by: HelioPrime Is there anything to indicate they intended for us to never change? And if you feel that way then why did they leave that power those after them? If they really wanted as limited as possible a government for all time then why leave tools for changing that if need be?

The ability, and the process for changing, and creating laws are clear. How come you guys can only interpret the part about changing laws?


These discussions have become like Bill Clinton asking for the definition of the word "is" while using it in a sentence. It's just so obvious that you are disingenuous, and misrepresent your opposition at every opportunity.


Clearly, you guys have been hanging out with those Republicans too long. It rubbed off on you, or visa versa. You have become just like those that you hated for so long. Too bad reason had to be the one to step in, and try to break it up, as it has done little except prvide a convenient punching bag for the psychotics that were at each others throats.