QUOTE(Amlord)
The second article I linked to provided a dictionary definition of "welfare".
I don't think debating based on dictionary definitions is particularly valid, but I'll bite.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Welfare: n.
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.
The term "welfare" in the Constitution would be the second definition. So, the government is empowered to keep the people safe from unusual evil or calamity and to provide the "ordinary blessings of society and civil government" so that they can enjoy "peace and prosperity".
"Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity" could very easily be taken to mean without too much imagination - creation of departments such as FEMA and Homeland Security and creation of things like child labor laws.
"Enjoyment of peace and prosperity" could very easily be taken to mean without too much imagination - regulations for economic benefit or social programs to help the less fortunate such as welfare. Wouldn't you agree?
QUOTE(Pedro)
Taking the simple structural logic of the words themselves, you cannot conclude that the "general welfare" clause stands alone, divorced from the rest of the document. Consider: "I like to play tennis and golf with my wife. I particular enjoy beating her."
You presume to be able to pull the second sentence out of context and use it to send me to jail.
If you remember correctly I said:
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
The "General Welfare" clause gives Congress the power to make laws it sees fit for the country, but they could not make a law in direct contradiction with some other portion of the Constitution or the amendments.
In
this post.
Therefore, I do not consider the "General Welfare" clause to be divorced from the rest of the document. What you have
not proven, is that anything else in the constitution contradicts or limits this clause. Therefore your example doesn't apply.