The Preamble goes like this:



Debate questions:

1) What is meant by the "general Welfare"?

2) What does the word "promote" in that phrase mean or imply?

Reference link. This one is pretty good, and of course there are others.

1) What is meant by the "general Welfare"?

Apparently it refers to the welfare (i.e., faring well, well-being) of the country as a whole, in contrast to that of specific individuals, regions, or interests.

2) What does the word "promote" in that phrase mean or imply?

Well, I'm guessing that it meant that the Constitution's authors felt that adoption of the Constitution would result in an increase in the national well-being, over and above what would be the case if it hadn't been adopted.

Is there any controversy on this subject? It seems pretty straightforward.

Yes, I believe there is controversy on this subject, because I believe the federal government is no longer within the constraints of the Constitution. Given the current size and scope of this government, I am concerned that the nation as a whole has lost perspective of what the Founders through the Constitution intended it to be.

I am going to ask you the same question I asked and did not get an answer to on another thread. The world is vastly different than it was in 1787. Does interpretation of the Constitution not have to change to keep up with things that are vastly different more than 200 years later? The reason we have courts is to sort out the different interpretations.

Are the founding fathers infallible?

Screen name aside, I think your apparent obsession with the intent of the founders is a rather narrow approach.

1) What is meant by the "general Welfare"?
I think you could ask the same of “social tranquility”. I would think it means general welfare of the people, its pretty straight and narrow on that one. If the government allows for instance the border issue to exist, taking into account all things considered with is such as loss of jobs to illegal aliens and terrorist infiltration the government would not be caring for the general welfare of its people, or if its people were living in disease or some epidemic like that general welfare would not be met, or I guess having thousands of starveling people or something.

2) What does the word "promote" in that phrase mean or imply?

Just what the word says.

Even though that sounds like a bit of an off-topic question, I'll answer it here, hoping it won't trigger a notice from the mods.

The Constitution says what it says, so there can only be one right interpretation. If it doesn't meet the needs of today's society, then we have an amendment process.


And to identify the right one. It's not the job of the courts to change the meaning of the Constitution.

Well let me put it this way, times change, events change, technology changes.....but men do not. If you were to study the Founders in more detail you would marvel at their genius. These men were experts at history, philosophy, religion and the law. This knowledge extended well beyond England (and even Europe) for some of the most well known Founders (e.g., Madison, Jefferson, Adams). We only have a few people like that today, and none have been recent presidents. Don't get me wrong, we have some very good people today, but to say some of the key Founders were extraordinary would be quite correct. Even some of the Founders like George Washington marveled at the genius of Madison and others, to the extent that they assumed Divine Providence must have intervened.

Anyway, to answer your question, no, the interpretation of the US Constitution does not change because it is timeless. What the Supreme Court is suppose to do is determine if laws passed by the legislature conflict with the Constitution, and if so they are sent back to the legislature for revision or repeal.

Are you assuming that you are the only one on the site who has read the founding fathers or anything about them.

One could certainly do that and come to different conclusions than you have.

I certainly did not mean to imply that no one else has studied the Founders or that I know more than anyone else. People have varying interest and no one has depth in every subject. I'm sure you could form any conclusion you wanted to. Do you have any substantive comments to make, or were you just trying to correct my error? Thank you.

1) What is meant by the "general Welfare"?

In 1787, I suppose it meant to keep Native American attacks controlled and to protect from the British. If we are to always interpret the Constitution in 1787 ideas, then I guess we all should be speaking Japanese or German, in which case the question would be moot. Neither the Japanese nor the Germans were threats back then. Of course, water and air pollution were not known, nor was industrialization. Corporations came much later, as did suburbs and the nuclear family. Well, this could go on forever, but the point is that the general welfare changes with each decade.

Today the general welfare very well could mean something global.

2) What does the word "promote" in that phrase mean or imply?

Promote is an action verb. I think it means the same now as then. The first definition in Webster's is:

1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further

So, does the general welfare exist? Is it flourishing? Do the feds further it?

Here's where we head into the realm of opinion, point of view, and station in life. The welfare of the upper 2% of wealth exists, is flourishing and is being furthered. However, that's not the general welfare, unless one buys into trickle-down. In fact, there's trickly-out, thus shrinking the middle classes.

Okay, the feds aren't following the Preamble, and it seems nobody can make them. Chalk it up to a nice thought but not very binding.

It would be interesting to see an amendment that would modify the Preamble.

Is that so? Please quote a source indicating that the 1787 definition, either of the word "general", the word "welfare", or the phrase "general welfare", encompassed any of those things. Your statement is illogical on its face.

Only if we were to ignore the phrase immediately preceding, which quite handily covers all the threats you outline. Given the existence of "provide for the common defence", it seems as though lumping responses to Indian attacks and British Imperialism under "general welfare" seems, well, a tad bit redundant.

Try again...

Likely not a direct consideration of the Founders...
Hessians, anybody? Not to mention that annoying scion of the House of Hanover, later renamed House of Windsor, aka King George III. Nope, no threat from Germans...

Righhhhhht. Wood smoke and filthy sewers weren't a problem in 18th century Paris or London, or ...

The Industrial Revolution (1760 - 1830)

Much, much later... Stora Enso, oldest commercial corporation in the world....

Of course, it could probably be argued that since none of the Founders were inimately acquainted with the history and circumstances of the Swedish economy, perhaps they were unaware of Stora Kopparberg, and thus unaware of corporations.

Nah, that won't fly either...

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb]Excerpted History of Suburbs

As long as there have been cities, there have been suburbs. Some urban activities have always been located outside the city. Even in ancient Mesopotamia, such activities as slaughterhouses, furnaces, and other undesirable enterprises were located outside the defensive walls, away from the masses of citizens. Additionally, citizens of a classical city often chose to build homes outside the city, sacrificing the protection of the walls for less expensive land and more space and privacy. The ancient Romans called these areas suburbium, or “under or outside the wall.” A second form of suburb found near the ancient or classical city was the port or dockyard. These communities were often located away from the central walled city, yet totally dependent on that city. Ancient Athens had Piraeus while ancient Rome had Ostia, and similar examples are found in classical China. A final classical example of a suburb was Rome’s suburb of Tivoli, a sort of classical version of the Hamptons or Westchester County outside New York City. In Tivoli, many of Rome’s wealthy elite owned large estates where they would escape the urban crowds. A permanent population developed to support these estates, yet Tivoli was completely dependent on Rome and many wealthy elite commuted to Rome for business or politics.[/url]

Or, you can just read the History of Wall Street which not only includes pre-Revolutionary corporations, but demonstrates the dynamics of suburban development in pre-Revolutionary times.

Ahh, but to what end? Just how much historical myth are you going to regurgitate? Such wholesale peddling of legends is quite out of character for you.
Perhaps a more accurate assessment of the point, now that we can consider fact rather than fiction, is that the general welfare doesn't change nearly as much as one might think.

It could, but such a definition would not be consonant with the notion of soveriegnty inherent in the Preamble to the Consititution

Lifestyles of the Superrich and Not So Famous
Yes, I suppose it is a function of your point of view.... whether it be that of a spoiled child p'o'd that the kid next door has more toys, or the point of view of one thankful to be a member of the wealthiest generation in history.

If it were considered to be binding, abortion would be illegal.

It might be kept in mind here that the Preamble has only one purpose; to explain why the Constitution exists. It is difficult for me to see how it can have any legal force by itself, since it only announces a goal, and not the methods which will be used to meet that goal. With this in mind, I don't see how you can interpret the meaning of "promote the general Welfare" in any way other than a very general one. The goal is to increase the well-being of the people of the United States. The preamble says nothing about how this is to be done; the rest of the Constitution does that.

Hi, big fan of the FF myself and definitely quite Libertarian in my feelings that the USGov is far too large and much too intrusive. (How many people do you know who want to abolish the Department of Agriculture, Department of Education and the Department of Energy ASAP?)

However, your assertation that Constitution is Timeless is clearly wrong and frankly a rather simplistic view the FF would not have entertained for a moment. The US Constitution is one of the longest running documents in the history of civilized government exactly because it is a LIVING document subject to change and interpretation. The FF wisely allowed the Constitution to be changed and amended. This is proof of their genius. Further the Federalist Papers, and Anti-Federalist papers make clear why the Bill of Rights is included and why a malleable Constitution is vital to its longevity.

Attempts to confine the US Constitution to one rigid interpretation or another should be thwarted.

Thwart!

Considerate your thwart failed.

Amendments to change the Constitution are permissable, but liberal interpretations of it are prohibited. Why even have a Constitution if anyone's interpretation is allowable. No, I'm sorry Mr. Libertarian but your thoughts on living documents and changing interpretations couldn't be more false and dangerous. The Founders said what they meant and meant what they said. The fact that there were Federalists and Anti-Federalists proves that the wording of the Constitution was eched in stone with a single meaning and intent for every clause, only to be altered by a deliberate amendment voted upon by many states before approval. I've read some of your other posts and respect your bluntness, but what you're saying here is totally incorrect.



If the Constitution says that the sky is blue, and Congress passes a law that says the sky is navy blue on Wednesdays, the Supreme Court has to come in and say NO, the sky is blue everyday, and navy blue not at all.

I'm sure James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, among others, would be impressed by the above platitude. Actually the Constitution is more complex than the sky being blue. To carry the analogy further, the sky I see is sometime blue, at times different shades of gray and with an occasional rainbow adding other colors. At night it's black, sometimes with moonlight and stars dotting the fermament. On cloudy nights, it's just black.

What exactly does “no law respecting the establishment of religion” mean? Is this a blue sky issue or one of grayscale? Judging from the number of threads we’ve debated on those seven words, I opt for the latter.

The founders gave Congress the power to declare war, but how many wars have we fought since the end of WWII? How many of them have been declared wars? Without getting into the merits of any of the military efforts, was it the intent of the founders that we fight undeclared wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq? Your answer must be, yes. You've already stated support for war in Iraq on this thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=13162&st=0

I have previously described your approach as too narrow. BA was a little less kind in calling it simplistic.



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=195768

I’ll be kind and continue to use the word “narrow.” You know, nuance.

1) What is meant by the "general Welfare"?

It is to be defined, but not presently so. I offer that it is that state of the "Commons" (people, places and things.) that best ensure liberty and justice for all, equally paid for ($'s, time, war "damage/death" risk) by all.

2) What does the word "promote" in that phrase mean or imply?

A structure and set of laws that can be demonstrated to do 1) above!

I think the government has become to big simply because to many people started to use it on a personal crusade type basis. From the religious right to bleeding heart liberals and all the shades in between. Hardly do these people ever approach the government with fact, just emotion and desire, and well then you have that reflecting over the populous at large because its the federal government, it has that type of power/authority.

This is one of the reasons I hate how environmental thought gets so easily lumped in with that war currently being waged in the government, far left vs. far right and all those middle casualties of such.

Environmental policy actually has something tangible connected to it and of course effects everyone in that regard, but hey, there are more pressing issues and such is off topic.

The preamble as its called is really nothing more then that, a preamble to the constitution. Besides simply trying to impose your perception on the constitution in what could be called intent by some form of corrupted deciphering of the constitution, the preamble is about the closest thing you can get to in terms of intent. Going from the founding fathers perspectives outside of such is of no consequence overall because the constituting for the most part is really well worded for what it was to lawfully enact as such a document, basically the morality of our country as it stands, which was really just a massive push for personal liberty, as in most laws are basically just set around that, and going back in the day it was hard to get a drug made illegal simply because most people felt it was nothing more then a breech of personal liberty, but people on moral crusades have there stubbornness.

Since then its basically just been a back and forth battle, or sectarian violence at a political level, which is really just slow;y corrupting the entire government. I mean that debacle in Florida with the voting was simply horrible to witness, and how disgusting it was that the government did not enact every possible option to see that the peoples voice was heard in respects to what voting really means and liberty and all that stuff that’s slowly becoming a pipe dream.

Now we have democrats down in California trying to protect illegal aliens and republicans that want to put homosexuals in camps for correction, its just a giant mess overall, really a moderate independent party bent on fact and care and respect for our constitution needs to come about, really to save America anymore, and its place in the world and all the love we simply twisted really into hate. The other option is to agree with this tuggle war with groups that agree to use the government as a vehicle to enforce there perception and morality on the public at large, which will simply never work in the long run and will lead to nothing more then ugly situations.

This current administration to me has reflected null care not only for our constitution, but congress and the public at large, but yet they are the super patriots for some reason, really just a nice use of fear or maybe even what could be called what “terrorism” hopes to obtain by violent actions.