The general welfare clause is used to justify all sorts of expansions of government. It can (and has) be used to justify pretty much anything.

Madison wrote, upon vetoing a public works bill in which the Congress wanted to levy a tax to improve roads and canals:""The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress."
and..."To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision." source (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm)
This from the principal author of the Constitution should weigh considerably upon the intent of the law and the scope of the limited federal government.

The first quote sounds like it concerns the Commerce Clause, which is a very broad power and a whole different kettle of fish.

Regarding the General welfare Clause, it's also pretty broad and has been interpreted as such since Marshall was on the Court. As the Court explained this clause in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 91(1976) (citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 420, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819)), "[i]t is rather a grant of power, the scope of which is quite expansive, particularly in view of the enlargement of power by the Necessary and Proper Clause."

The first quote sounds like it concerns the Commerce Clause, which is a very broad power and a whole different kettle of fish.

Regarding the General welfare Clause, it's also pretty broad and has been interpreted as such since Marshall was on the Court. As the Court explained this clause in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 91(1976) (citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 420, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819)), "t is rather a grant of power, the scope of which is quite expansive, particularly in view of the enlargement of power by the Necessary and Proper Clause."


Yes, it is. Madison was concerned about overbroad use of both. He concludes with:

[I]"I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest."

Given his role in the construction of the Constitution, his application of Constitutional principles as chief executive wielding his veto power is particularly significant (see the Executive Branch thread) in setting precedent. The Founders understood and embraced the concept of limited government. When given the opportunity to expand, they declined.

The general welfare clause is used to justify all sorts of expansions of government. It can (and has) be used to justify pretty much anything.

Madison wrote, upon vetoing a public works bill in which the Congress wanted to levy a tax to improve roads and canals:[INDENT][I]""The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses

Here is what I say to that:

I must question this assertion in light of facts, and state that Madison lacked sufficient imagination to even conceive of the state of affair today. Do you think every state is self sufficient in food? Water? Energy?

Given the degree of interconnectedness in today's world, states cannot be self sufficient in the way that Madison assumed they would be. When transportation between states is not just an added aspect to economic activity, but a lynchpin upon which all our livelihoods and very lives depend, then we must give more import to interstate commerce than in the past..

I would agree with Madison that unfettered use of the commerce clause would be foolish. But I think with a little thought about the nature of interstate commerce in the 18th versus 21st centuries we can agree the commerce clause would require more federal application based on the reality of our material existence. If Madison were alive today I think he would see how roads and canals and rivers were a legitimate federal interest. At least MORE of a federal interest than in his day.

The Founders understood and embraced the concept of limited government. When given the opportunity to expand, they declined.
Limited, yes; handcuffed, no. We still have a limited government even if we broadly interpret our Constitution so as to be able to have our government function. It's why our Constitution has lasted so long. We need to keep in mind that the Founders were merely men. Men who lived in an age wholly different from our own. We cannot handicap ourselves by reading tea leaves and try to extrapolate what they would no in our modern situation. It's a futile exercise.

I would agree with Madison that unfettered use of the commerce clause would be foolish. But I think with a little thought about the nature of interstate commerce in the 18th versus 21st centuries we can agree the commerce clause would require more federal application based on the reality of our material existence. If Madison were alive today I think he would see how roads and canals and rivers were a legitimate federal interest. At least MORE of a federal interest than in his day.
The only person in the Union who currently fully subscribes to such a narrow and untenable view of the Commece Clause is Justice Thomas.See his concurrence in United States v. Lopez (1995).

Here is what I say to that:

I must question this assertion in light of facts, and state that Madison lacked sufficient imagination to even conceive of the state of affair today. Do you think every state is self sufficient in food? Water? Energy?

Given the degree of interconnectedness in today's world, states cannot be self sufficient in the way that Madison assumed they would be. When transportation between states is not just an added aspect to economic activity, but a lynchpin upon which all our livelihoods and very lives depend, then we must give more import to interstate commerce than in the past..

I would agree with Madison that unfettered use of the commerce clause would be foolish. But I think with a little thought about the nature of interstate commerce in the 18th versus 21st centuries we can agree the commerce clause would require more federal application based on the reality of our material existence. If Madison were alive today I think he would see how roads and canals and rivers were a legitimate federal interest. At least MORE of a federal interest than in his day.


There is little doubt that the role of the federal government needs to be larger today than it was in Madison's time. The problem is that there is no longer any thought at all given to Madison's concerns. We assume that the federal government will step in.

Since commerce is the root of our system, why would we not assume that the individual states would look after their own roads and canals if their livelihood depended upon it? While the interstate system has been a boon in some ways, it also bears a lot of the blame for urban flight and the decline of our cities. Cost/benefit ratio there has to be a wash at best.

Had the veto come from anyone else, I'd put less stock in it but, coming from Madison, when he says "that's not how it's meant to work" you can't really say he's wrong. If you read between the lines, he ends his veto by essentially saying "Guys, I get it but if you want to do this, do it right: Amend the Constitution."

The only person in the Union who currently fully subscribes to such a narrow and untenable view of the Commece Clause is Justice Thomas.See his concurrence in United States v. Lopez (1995).

I fully agree with the decision in U.S. v. Lopez. The application of the commerce clause in that case is beyond ridiculous.

Had the veto come from anyone else, I'd put less stock in it but, coming from Madison, when he says "that's not how it's meant to work" you can't really say he's wrong.

I did not mean to say it was wrong when written, but that it would be wrong in THIS case to stick purely to orignial intent. Modern society has changed to the point that original intent cannot apply in the same way on this particular issue. I think Madison had a very different view of economic activity at the state level than we must take today, and that is because he could not foresee certain elements of modern life.

Roads. Well, what if states decided not to recognize other state's driver's licenses and car registrations? Suppose you had to get a license and new plates at every border? Keep in mind that the commerce clause is what allows contracts and such from one state to be automatically recongnized in another.

I did not mean to say it was wrong when written, but that it would be wrong in THIS case to stick purely to orignial intent. Modern society has changed to the point that original intent cannot apply in the same way on this particular issue. I think Madison had a very different view of economic activity at the state level than we must take today, and that is because he could not foresee certain elements of modern life.

Roads. Well, what if states decided not to recognize other state's driver's licenses and car registrations? Suppose you had to get a license and new plates at every border? Keep in mind that the commerce clause is what allows contracts and such from one state to be automatically recongnized in another.


Original intent, as I see it and as Madison alluded to in his veto, was simply "If the Constitution doesn't provide for it, you need to amend it." There's no reason an amendment couldn't have been made granting specific authority to Congress to provide for roads and canals. Madison clearly recognized the need but couldn't rectify an overbroad application of the clause.

As far as states recognizing each other's driver's licenses and contracts, it's actually covered under Article 4, Section 1 (not the commerce clause): Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


I think we do a disservice to the Founders when we say things like "they could never have imagined...." They were singularly visionary men. Men who were well read and educated. Many of the scientific breakthroughs that we consider fundemental now were made during their lifetimes -- some made by them. Even air travel was on the table back then.

I think we do a disservice to the Founders when we say things like "they could never have imagined...." They were singularly visionary men. Men who were well read and educated. Many of the scientific breakthroughs that we consider fundemental now were made during their lifetimes -- some made by them. Even air travel was on the table back then.


I am not saying they could not understand it, rather they would not have predicted it.

Consider the issues some people who are elderly face learning to use computers and the internet. Now extrapolate backwards how many generations? A bit more distance of understanding each time. We are talking another way of seeing the world that is darn near alien. Heck, just reading the language of the time is hard slogging. Lots of idiomatic meanings floating around that just don't carry the same impact today.

I do think they could understand the internet in terms of "very fast post office and tavern" with little trouble. The metaphors would work for them.

However, with prediction of the future the issue is problematic is that of the definition of "State". The very label "state" carried in it an embedded assumption for the founders, that of self sufficiency. From the city states of Greece to the Nation states of their time every state was self contained and self sufficient. That condition no longer is in play for the United States.

Changes in the very fabric of the economic endeavor at these scales was not in their world view. For a state to starve if it closed its borders (absent huge drought or some such) would seem to be excluded by defintion of state in play at the time.

That said, I really have no idea what they defined "state" as, and I am pretty much just guessing. I hope someone can speak to that without guessing!

I am not saying they could not understand it, rather they would not have predicted it.

Consider the issues some people who are elderly face learning to use computers and the internet. Now extrapolate backwards how many generations? A bit more distance of understanding each time. We are talking another way of seeing the world that is darn near alien. Heck, just reading the language of the time is hard slogging. Lots of idiomatic meanings floating around that just don't carry the same impact today.

I do think they could understand the internet in terms of "very fast post office and tavern" with little trouble. The metaphors would work for them.

However, with prediction of the future the issue is problematic is that of the definition of "State". The very label "state" carried in it an embedded assumption for the founders, that of self sufficiency. From the city states of Greece to the Nation states of their time every state was self contained and self sufficient. That condition no longer is in play for the United States.

Changes in the very fabric of the economic endeavor at these scales was not in their world view. For a state to starve if it closed its borders (absent huge drought or some such) would seem to be excluded by defintion of state in play at the time.

That said, I really have no idea what they defined "state" as, and I am pretty much just guessing. I hope someone can speak to that without guessing!


a conservative libertarian, I must completely agree with Ken here. The problem is that congress is usurping state's authority as granted by the constitution, I agree, that the world is a different place nowadays, but as someone else said. CONGRESS MUST THEN AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. It's that simple, either they stick to it as it was originally intended and written, or they write and pass amendments to provide for any ambiguity. Also, we would have to cease being the USA.....for we would simply be America....think of the copyright problems....oh the humanity.:(

Seriously, we need to drastically cut and reduce the federal government, and expand state's independence and self governance.:thumbsup:

a conservative libertarian, I must completely agree with Ken here. ....

Keep in mind I have not even addressed the general welfare clause yet. Just the commerce clause.

So, mr. libertarian, what should states be able to do now that federal laws using the commerce clause stop them from doing?

The general welfare clause ...

What is the general welfare? What did they mean by that phrase?

Was it to provide conditions where individuals would be free (at liberty) to pursue their own interests? Is that right? Or not? Or not quite?

What is the general welfare? What did they mean by that phrase?

Was it to provide conditions where individuals would be free (at liberty) to pursue their own interests? Is that right? Or not? Or not quite?


Liberty and safety. The government's job is to protect the people so they can be free to prosper. That is how I believe the Founders meant the term general welfare. As you read through the FPs, the term "general welfare" and "defense/common defense" live almost side by side throughout. It is also thus within the Constitution.

I think a good definition of "general welfare" is defined by Madison in Fderalist #41:
That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

All of these things combine to to provide for the general welfare.

Well, you know "4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility" covers a LOT of ground.

Liberty and safety.

Ok, and further let us state that safety is essential to liberty, but liberty is the primary goal.

Safety, it seems to me that the federal government can trump state's interests when the state fails to provide safety to its citizens. Yes? So for example federal civil rights actions are justified.

Liberty. That's a big one. What is liberty? What did that mean at the time?

Well, you know "4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility" covers a LOT of ground.



Ok, and further let us state that safety is essential to liberty, but liberty is the primary goal.

Safety, it seems to me that the federal government can trump state's interests when the state fails to provide safety to its citizens. Yes? So for example federal civil rights actions are justified.

Liberty. That's a big one. What is liberty? What did that mean at the time?



If you read further down in Federalist #41, you'll find this:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

Madison makes it pretty clear that the clause is not intended to be a sweeping excuse for government expansion.

I agree with your example of valid use of federal authority. The Civil War would be the ultimate use.

Liberty, I'm sure, meant different things to different people then, as it does now. I'm pretty confident that the common traits would be freedom to live as one wishes and freedom from government interference.

I fully agree with the decision in U.S. v. Lopez. The application of the commerce clause in that case is beyond ridiculous.
Fair enough. The Darby decision was ridiculous. It pretty much said that the feds could regulate commerce, even though it wasn't interstate and wasn't commerce. I tend to agree with the majority in Lopez as well. It offers some theoretical limit without handcuffing the federal government.

Liberty, I'm sure, meant different things to different people then, as it does now. I'm pretty confident that the common traits would be freedom to live as one wishes and freedom from government interference.

Well, Jefferson had a concise definition:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20030106/ai_n10015774

I am sure Madison defined liberty too. I mean, with such a central concept he must have defined it somewhere, some time. Any ideas what he defined it as?

Still, I will go with Jefferson's def if you will.

Well, Jefferson had a concise definition:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20030106/ai_n10015774

I am sure Madison defined liberty too. I mean, with such a central concept he must have defined it somewhere, some time. Any ideas what he defined it as?

Still, I will go with Jefferson's def if you will.


I'm sure he did but I've not come across one that I can recall as being a concise, specific definition of liberty. Jefferson and Madison were of the same mind on so many things.... I'll go with TJ's for the sake of this discussion too (unless TMB can provide the missing reference!). There are myriad snippets out there where he defines various components of liberty though.


/loaned my Madison bio out and haven't gotten it back yet. :(
//hoping TMB joins in on this thread before I can butcher the Founders too badly.

I'm sure he did but I've not come across one that I can recall as being a concise, specific definition of liberty. Jefferson and Madison were of the same mind on so many things.... I'll go with TJ's for the sake of this discussion too (unless TMB can provide the missing reference!). There are myriad snippets out there where he defines various components of liberty though.


/loaned my Madison bio out and haven't gotten it back yet. :(
//hoping TMB joins in on this thread before I can butcher the Founders too badly.

It seems normal to me to include interstate transportation medium under promoting the general welfare. When listening to you advocate strict adherence to the words of the founders, I can't help but remember that many of them were slave holders. It seems to me that maybe they either didn't hold to all of it themselves or, like us, they fit it in context with their times. As I recall, the Interstate system began as a way to move military assets around the country quickly in case the bumbling, incompetant, bankrupt Soviet Union shot a rocket at us. Wouldn't that put it under the defense portion that you agree with?

P.S
I understand my own ignorance on this here lofty stuff but it's the only fight agoin' tonight. :)

It seems normal to me to include interstate transportation medium under promoting the general welfare. When listening to you advocate strict adherence to the words of the founders, I can't help but remember that many of them were slave holders. It seems to me that maybe they either didn't hold to all of it themselves or, like us, they fit it in context with their times. As I recall, the Interstate system began as a way to move military assets around the country quickly in case the bumbling, incompetant, bankrupt Soviet Union shot a rocket at us. Wouldn't that put it under the defense portion that you agree with?

P.S
I understand my own ignorance on this here lofty stuff but it's the only fight agoin' tonight. :)


If I come across as being for strict adherence to the Constitution in its original form, I'm not doing a good job of stating my position. The intent of the Constitution is to establish a limited federal government with specific enumerated powers. It provides a mechanism for enumerating additional powers. That mechanism is what Madison was alluding to in his veto of the roads and canals bill.

If we, as a nation, want the federal government to assume roles originally intended for state and local governments, that's fine by me. Just go about it in a Constitutionally correct manner: Amendment. Don't use insane, over-broad interpretations as the means to create lousy law and even lousier precedent. If roads and canals/SSI/health care/etc should come under the pervue of the federal government, an amendment stating so is in order. It's hard, but then, expanding the federal government should be hard. We shouldn't be seeking to subvert our laws.

If I come across as being for strict adherence to the Constitution in its original form, I'm not doing a good job of stating my position. The intent of the Constitution is to establish a limited federal government with specific enumerated powers. It provides a mechanism for enumerating additional powers. That mechanism is what Madison was alluding to in his veto of the roads and canals bill.

If we, as a nation, want the federal government to assume roles originally intended for state and local governments, that's fine by me. Just go about it in a Constitutionally correct manner: Amendment. Don't use insane, over-broad interpretations as the means to create lousy law and even lousier precedent. If roads and canals/SSI/health care/etc should come under the pervue of the federal government, an amendment stating so is in order. It's hard, but then, expanding the federal government should be hard. We shouldn't be seeking to subvert our laws.

The Constitution has adapted over the course of years...almost from the get go. Ever since Marshall "defined" the argument between Hamiliton and Jefferson in Mccollugh v. Maryland (1803?), coming down on the Hamilton side, the tight constriction was let loose. When Taney took over during the Jacksonian era, he did one thing that Madison would have probably have admired, it falls onto the auspices of states rights and limited federal government, but ended up being used to widen the expanse of government. This case was the Charles River Bridge Case (1833?). In Taney's decision the court relied on a narrow reading, recognizing only explicit claims on contracts (between corporations and the legislatures that at the time gave them charter), saying that the legislature of Mass had a right to improve upon the community as they saw fit. (In this case it was to allow a second bridge to be built). Despite this roll back (Justice Story the last holdover of Federalists from the Marshall court hated this ruling, wrote 35,000 words in his scathing dissent on the primacy of contracts and natural law...quite a treatise)...the Marshall court remains a fixture and Taney still believed in the supremecy of national power when state law conflicted with national power.

The upshot is that even going back to Madison's time, there was not a consensus as to where the government can step in. There was a famous rail case following the ratification of the 14th amendment. In 1876 the court decided (Munn v. Illinios) that one could legislate against private companies that acted toward the public benefit. This led to any number of regulatory issues that followed and allowed for many of the regulations (both good and bad) that we have and the expansion that we still see today...of government.

Took the court cases because, much of the early period was defined by cases such as these and the context that was behind the decision is very telling.

I'll go with TJ's for the sake of this discussion too

Ok. So a central and rightful role of the federal government is to ensure liberty to the people, specifically to provide conditions where "Unobstructed action, that does not violate the rights of others, according to our will." is possible.

Now, do you think the government should provide for this liberty at a "minimal" level, or should the government work to "increase" liberty for all? It seems to me the government is expected to act to maintain liberty, but also to increase it where liberty is lacking for the people of the land. In other words, where rights are violated and thus liberty is constrained. That is working for the general welfare, safety and ensuring maximum liberty.

Do the founding fathers say anything about this issue?

Do you?

Ok. So a central and rightful role of the federal government is to ensure liberty to the people, specifically to provide conditions where "Unobstructed action, that does not violate the rights of others, according to our will." is possible.

Now, do you think the government should provide for this liberty at a "minimal" level, or should the government work to "increase" liberty for all? It seems to me the government is expected to act to maintain liberty, but also to increase it where liberty is lacking for the people of the land. In other words, where rights are violated and thus liberty is constrained. That is working for the general welfare, safety and ensuring maximum liberty.

Do the founding fathers say anything about this issue?

Do you?


Madison considered rights a form of property and felt that the government's job was to protect that property.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html



I agree with him.

Madison considered rights a form of property and felt that the government's job was to protect that property.

[snip]

I agree with him.


But what do you think about the notion of "unobstructed action"?

See, rights are what we have as individuals, I think we are on that page for the FFs. But the question of liberty in the definition we have accepted includes this idea of "unobstructed action".

What does it mean today for a person, vested with full rights unrestricted by age, military service, prison, or other factor, to have "unobstructed action"?

But what do you think about the notion of "unobstructed action"?

See, rights are what we have as individuals, I think we are on that page for the FFs. But the question of liberty in the definition we have accepted includes this idea of "unobstructed action".

What does it mean today for a person, vested with full rights unrestricted by age, military service, prison, or other factor, to have "unobstructed action"?


I don't see the meaning of unobstructed action as changed between the 18th century and now.

You're leading to something.... spit it out!

I don't see the meaning of unobstructed action as changed between the 18th century and now.

You're leading to something.... spit it out!

I'm not leading, I'm just asking questions. I readily admit my ignorance of Madison's words on these topics.

We have defined your terms, relevant to what "general welfare" is pretty well. That is the title of this thread, right? Liberty, safety, but we are left with unobstructed action. What is that? What was the definition in the 18th century?

Only once we know what unobstructed action is can we determine the limits of the general welfare clause.

Oh, and while I am not leading, and would not claim to lead, I think we still have a ways to go... wherever that may be. :)

I'm not leading, I'm just asking questions. I readily admit my ignorance of Madison's words on these topics.

We have defined your terms, relevant to what "general welfare" is pretty well. That is the title of this thread, right? Liberty, safety, but we are left with unobstructed action. What is that? What was the definition in the 18th century?

Only once we know what unobstructed action is can we determine the limits of the general welfare clause.

Oh, and while I am not leading, and would not claim to lead, I think we still have a ways to go... wherever that may be. :)

Unobstructed action? I'll take a flyer, her husband is working the night shift?

Madison considered rights a form of property and felt that the government's job was to protect that property.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html



I agree with him.

I bestow no praise on a government that protects individuals' "enjoyment and communication of their opinion" to "f**k Bush.""

Only once we know what unobstructed action is can we determine the limits of the general welfare clause.

Fair enough.


As I said, I don't think the meaning of unobstructed action has changed any since Jefferson penned the term. A Googling of "unobstructed action" yields a scant 11000 hits, the first three pages of them specifically quoting TJ (I didn't look beyond the first three pages). Some of the hits were on pages supporting legalized drug use and fertilizers. Some were calling for the impeachment of Bush (I think 50% of the pages on the Internet are dedicated to that cause). I think the drug use issue is probably a good example of government infringment of liberty -- obstructing an action that has no impact on the rights of others. Probably most victimless crimes fall into the same category.

I think a good starting point for defining unobstructed action may be the debate on the necessity of a Bill of Rights. Madison opposed a bill of rights because he felt that enumerating specific rights would lead the government to thinking that anything not enumerated was not a guaranteed right. Hamilton covered it in Federalist #84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Defining "unobstructed action", in some ways, presents the same problems as does enumerating specific rights. It seems it would be easier to define limits toliberty rather than the expanse of it. Action according to our will, that does not violate the rights of others. I don't know that a more apt definition exists. If we want to attempt pigeon-hole Madison's notion of liberty I think it best to look at the body of his work on the whole rather than for specific statements. Perhaps that's a good delineation between Madison and Jefferson: Jefferson was the philosopher, Madison the politician.


If we can agree upon Jefferson's definition of liberty and Madison's definition of what the general welfare clause is not... do you have specific policy points in mind? I can think of a couple that I feel exceed the general welfare clause in Constitutional terms while still serving to provide for the general welfare: federally funded public schools, the DEA, SSI, the interstate highway system,... Some examples of applications I feel are Constitutionally correct: The FDA, the Clean Air Act, NASA, the FCC, the TSA. (agencies necessary to execute the legislation)

I bestow no praise on a government that protects individuals' "enjoyment and communication of their opinion" to "f**k
Bush.""

Why not?

Why not?

It's a call to overthrow the government, i.e., not protected speech.

And I think I'd find a way to choke the Rush Limbaughs and Randi Rhodes likewise: curb the creepy jibba jabba.

It's a call to overthrow the government, i.e., not protected speech.


That's a pretty large stretch. Is calling for his impeachment any different?

That's a pretty large stretch. Is calling for his impeachment any different?

Depends on how you "call." Civil discussion of impeachment is protected, and you are free to communicate your concerns, as an individual or group, with those electees who represent you in Congress, or, get your test case on.

Depends on how you "call." Civil discussion of impeachment is protected, and you are free to communicate your concerns, as an individual or group, with those electees who represent you in Congress, or, get your test case on.

I fail to see how saying "F*ck Bush!" is a call to overthrow the government. People have been saying that for 7 years now and, last I checked, the government hasn't been overthrown.

But.... since we're fantasizing.....

I may be able to go for your proposal if, in reciprocation, any violations of the Constitution by the President and/or his administration are punishable by death... of the entire administration.

Unobstructed action? I'll take a flyer, her husband is working the night shift?
Really? No one has commented on this one?

One of your better one-liners snake...

Madison considered rights a form of property and felt that the government's job was to protect that property.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html



I agree with him.

Should you? That is a very outdated concept in today's day and age. The folks suing in Charles River Bridge case made this very argument. According to natural law and man, property rights were part of that natural law. As it was governments responsibility to protect them...it meant that they in turn had to guard against, those that may disturb this balance. For Bridges, it meant those that might build another one and compete against them. For ferry operaters it meant the railroad, etc. All of these properties became devalued as new industry came on line. As time progesses, it became apparent that one needed to seperate the Natural Rights from those of property rights. In order to promote the general welfare (including technology advances), property rights could not be protected to the same extent as personal rights. This seperation began with the Taney court.

Should you? That is a very outdated concept in today's day and age. The folks suing in Charles River Bridge case made this very argument. According to natural law and man, property rights were part of that natural law. As it was governments responsibility to protect them...it meant that they in turn had to guard against, those that may disturb this balance. For Bridges, it meant those that might build another one and compete against them. For ferry operaters it meant the railroad, etc. All of these properties became devalued as new industry came on line. As time progesses, it became apparent that one needed to seperate the Natural Rights from those of property rights. In order to promote the general welfare (including technology advances), property rights could not be protected to the same extent as personal rights. This seperation began with the Taney court.


I don't know that I see the Taney decision as at odds with Madison's sentiment -- especially regarding the consideration of personal rights as a form of property rights. I don't see the court's decision in that case as not protecting the property of the CRB Co. as I don't see 'traffic' as property. In fact, defending the CRB Co could easily be seen as not protecting unobstructed action (Liberty) of others who wanted to build and/or use competing bridges. The property, as I see it, is the bridge itself.

I don't know that I see the Taney decision as at odds with Madison's sentiment -- especially regarding the consideration of personal rights as a form of property rights. I don't see the court's decision in that case as not protecting the property of the CRB Co. as I don't see 'traffic' as property. In fact, defending the CRB Co could easily be seen as not protecting unobstructed action (Liberty) of others who wanted to build and/or use competing bridges. The property, as I see it, is the bridge itself.

Story's dissent is a tirade in Madisonian terms. No longer he stated could the government be relied upon to protect property. With this, he estimated that the economy would fail unalterably, because corporations were no longer going to trust the government with their property rights. You see the picture in very 21st century terms, but the case before the court was whether or not a legislature could "alter" the terms of a contract, by simply offering a competing contract. In the 19th century, this was unique. You and Madison are seeing the same thing differently. You see the narrow reading (because that is what has evolved over time) as one in the same when in fact they are different. The Charles River Bridge case argued that their property was now worthless (because why would you go over a pay bridge when the one next door was free)... Joseph Story, who wrote extensively (privately) about natural rights and property was firmly in the Madison camp on this. No longer would the government protect the value of the property. They could now devalue it at the expense of the property... Taney argued that the contract had not been altered, that the bridge still stood, traffic could still pass and that their agreement was still valid. This was a change because it no longer took into account whether or not a competing contract had now rendered the original...worthless.

Madison, believed in the primacy of property and although he became devoutly anti-federalist he would have agreed with Story not Taney, based on the quotes that you have provided.

Defining "unobstructed action", in some ways, presents the same problems as does enumerating specific rights. It seems it would be easier to define limits toliberty rather than the expanse of it. Action according to our will, that does not violate the rights of others. I don't know that a more apt definition exists.

[snip]

If we can agree upon Jefferson's definition of liberty and Madison's definition of what the general welfare clause is not... do you have specific policy points in mind? I can think of a couple that I feel exceed the general welfare clause in Constitutional terms while still serving to provide for the general welfare: federally funded public schools, the DEA, SSI, the interstate highway system,... Some examples of applications I feel are Constitutionally correct: The FDA, the Clean Air Act, NASA, the FCC, the TSA. (agencies necessary to execute the legislation)

Now I am confused. Liberty consists of being able to do what you want so long as that does not violate the rights of others. The general welfare is to create conditions where liberty exists. But now you are saying liberty is a range, not an absolute. "limits to liberty rather than the exanse of it". That makes no sense if the primary goal of the FFs is the preservation of rights, and if rights are absolute. You either have the conditions for liberty or not. Your actions are either unobstructed or they are obstructed. If they are obstructed, the conditions of liberty are not in play, and therefore under the general welfare clause the federal government has a legitimate interest in changing that situation.

Let's take federally funded education programs. Please note they are NOT federally funded schools. To my knowledge there are no federally funded schools in the USA, but there are schools that tap into federal funds to do certain functions.

Still, why is education, where education is found to be limiting to children's right to liberty, not a federal issue. Certainly in racial segregation it was. Certainly in the differences in programs that title IX addressed it was. Is that not the ultimate case of people not being provided the conditions of liberty? After all, children have restricted rights as children. And if they are not given the tools needed so that they CAN exercise their liberty in modern society, it seems to me that the conditions for liberty are not being met. Given that education is a local issue, I fail to see your rationale that the federal government does not have an interest under the general welfare clause where children are being kept from having the basic tools needed to exercise their liberty upon reaching majority age.

States that fail in the education of children are not creating the conditions of liberty for their people, and the general welfare requires that, it requires that individuals have the tools WHEN then are granted full rights as adults, so that they can pursue what they choose to pursue. This is what promoting the general welfare means, to create a government that removes restrictions on individual action where that action does not impinge on the rights of others.

Please explain in greater detail how actions that promote the general welfare (provide conditions for liberty/unobstructed action) can NOT fit the general welfare clause. You have a list, make the argument that your list is correct.

Now I am confused. Liberty consists of being able to do what you want so long as that does not violate the rights of others. The general welfare is to create conditions where liberty exists. But now you are saying liberty is a range, not an absolute. "limits to liberty rather than the exanse of it". That makes no sense if the primary goal of the FFs is the preservation of rights, and if rights are absolute. You either have the conditions for liberty or not. Your actions are either unobstructed or they are obstructed. If they are obstructed, the conditions of liberty are not in play, and therefore under the general welfare clause the federal government has a legitimate interest in changing that situation.

Let's take federally funded education programs. Please note they are NOT federally funded schools. To my knowledge there are no federally funded schools in the USA, but there are schools that tap into federal funds to do certain functions.

Still, why is education, where education is found to be limiting to children's right to liberty, not a federal issue. Certainly in racial segregation it was. Certainly in the differences in programs that title IX addressed it was. Is that not the ultimate case of people not being provided the conditions of liberty? After all, children have restricted rights as children. And if they are not given the tools needed so that they CAN exercise their liberty in modern society, it seems to me that the conditions for liberty are not being met. Given that education is a local issue, I fail to see your rationale that the federal government does not have an interest under the general welfare clause where children are being kept from having the basic tools needed to exercise their liberty upon reaching majority age.

States that fail in the education of children are not creating the conditions of liberty for their people, and the general welfare requires that, it requires that individuals have the tools WHEN then are granted full rights as adults, so that they can pursue what they choose to pursue. This is what promoting the general welfare means, to create a government that removes restrictions on individual action where that action does not impinge on the rights of others.

Please explain in greater detail how actions that promote the general welfare (provide conditions for liberty/unobstructed action) can NOT fit the general welfare clause. You have a list, make the argument that your list is correct.

No time right now... but I will say that liberty is not a range. Please reread what I wrote. The problem with defining liberty is because is encompasses everything. Because of that, it's easier to define what liberties we give up so as not to trample the rights of others.

I'll follow-up later on.

Because of that, it's easier to define what liberties we give up so as not to trample the rights of others.


We need not "give up" any liberty, because by definition liberty does violate the rights of others.

The question is not us giving up liberties, but what the scope of the federal government should be to promote the general welfare (provide conditions for liberty and safety.)

I fail to see how saying "F*ck Bush!" is a call to overthrow the government. People have been saying that for 7 years now and, last I checked, the government hasn't been overthrown.

But.... since we're fantasizing.....

I may be able to go for your proposal if, in reciprocation, any violations of the Constitution by the President and/or his administration are punishable by death... of the entire administration.

I'm not fantasizing. It's not a proposal. It's a constitutionally warranted cause for investigation. And I now think the FBI should investigate you.

I'm not fantasizing. It's not a proposal. It's a constitutionally warranted cause for investigation. And I now think the FBI should investigate you.

Oh Pshaw, he's said lots of stuff worse than that. Them Feebies ain't paying attentention anyhow. :)

I'm not fantasizing. It's not a proposal. It's a constitutionally warranted cause for investigation. And I now think the FBI should investigate you.


Constitutionally warranted? How so?

Constitutionally warranted? How so?

I already said: a call to overthrow the government is not a first amendment right. And I think "f**k Bush" statements distributed in a medium to many is pause for concern. That it disturbs me and others that electees are disrespected so, hey, perhaps there's a way to make the ninth come alive in my defense. Got any ideas?

I already said: a call to overthrow the government is not a first amendment right. And I think "f**k Bush" statements distributed in a medium to many is pause for concern. That it disturbs me and others that electees are disrespected so, hey, perhaps there's a way to make the ninth come alive in my defense. Got any ideas?


That's your interpretation and it's pure fantasy. I'm still trying to find the article in the Constitution about disrespecting electees. Can you link to it for me?

I'm thinking that the 9th would work more against your fantasy than for it.

That's your interpretation and it's pure fantasy. I'm still trying to find the article in the Constitution about disrespecting electees. Can you link to it for me?

Odd that you and hoo had "unobstructed action" under the microscope. Define it as "Don't be a f**king sore loser."

We need not "give up" any liberty, because by definition liberty does violate the rights of others.

The question is not us giving up liberties, but what the scope of the federal government should be to promote the general welfare (provide conditions for liberty and safety.)


Promote is the operative word, not to be confused with provide. Promoting the general welfare would be passing legislation that says you can't burn plastics because it poisons your neighbor's air and, subsequently, him (unobstructed action that does not violate the rights of others/protection from being poisoned). Providing for the general welfare would be passing legislation that establishes a new tax to provide some form of service (education/health care/retirement fund).

In regard to funding educational programs... liberty does not require an education. People are at liberty to do as they wish regardless of education and they are at liberty to seek an education... or not. Is not taxing me to provide another an education infringing on my liberty to use my money as I see fit?

Compared to providing for the common defense, where Congress is Constitutionally authorized to act. Promote vs. provide.


That said, I do believe that education is a federal concern. I believe it should be provided for Constitutionally and specifically. I feel the same way about infrastructure and, possibly, even healthcare. But do it in a Constitutionally correct manner: Amendment.

Why? Because it's hard and should be hard. If we isn't, we run the risk of rationalizing everything imaginable as promoting the general welfare. How about GPS tracking implants for everyone so we know where they are incase they go missing? How about the government take over the management of everyone's finances because people are too stupid to manage their own properly? Or only allowing people to eat red meat once a week because more than that is bad for them? Or that cycling on the road just isn't worth the risk to drivers? Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line and say "Dude, you need to provide for yourself."?

Odd that you and hoo had "unobstructed action" under the microscope. Define it as "Don't be a f**king sore loser."


Couldn't find that link, eh? :wink:

In regard to funding educational programs... liberty does not require an education. People are at liberty to do as they wish regardless of education and they are at liberty to seek an education... or not. Is not taxing me to provide another an education infringing on my liberty to use my money as I see fit?

Compared to providing for the common defense, where Congress is Constitutionally authorized to act. Promote vs. provide.


That said, I do believe that education is a federal concern. I believe it should be provided for Constitutionally and specifically. I feel the same way about infrastructure and, possibly, even healthcare. But do it in a Constitutionally correct manner: Amendment.


Really, education is not required for liberty? You really think that kids who have never had an education will be able to exercise their liberty at the age of majority? Today, in 2007? You don't think that parents who refuse to educate their children are doing anything wrong, not violating the rights of their chidren during that time the child's rights are limited due to age? Amazing position to hold!

We FORCE children to be educated in this nation, right? We restrict the rights of children, correct? It seems that education is seen by the people as a needed component for a society of people who can exercise their liberty. So if you don't think education is needed for individuals to exercise their liberty, for individuals to even understand their liberty, rights, and how they interact with the rights of others, you are in a very small group.

If a state decided to do away with public education and only have private education, so that poor kids did not have a chance to get an education, that would be fine and constitutional in your mind? Hmmmm, too bad it was not constitutional when it came to minorities and women, but maybe you can make the case if it is poverty not race or sex that draws the line between kids educated and not.

To be honest, I think you are doing a diservice to the founders and the constitution itself. Clearly language that is open ended was included, such as "promote the general welfare" so that the laws can be shaped to the times. Clearly even Madison was big on leaving wiggle room, what with his idea of "Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility" that can cover just about anything.

You think we really need a constitutional amendment to have federal education programs, health care programs, etc. But it seems that the general welfare cause provides sufficient leeway, even with the restricted definition of "general welfare" you think the founders held, to allow for laws to be duly passed and enacted on such topics. You admit education is a federal concern, but you claim the constitution needs amending. That does not make sense. If they can't address it until an amendment is passed, then it is NOT currently a federal concern. Not until the guiding document of the federal system is changed.

No, you have failed to convince me that such programs need a constitutional amendment. At most, they need to be focused on how they affect the conditions on the ground of promoting liberty. That way they clearly will have the legislative intent of promoting the general welfare as strictly defined by us in this discussion, and by the founders in their time as well.

Really, education is not required for liberty? You really think that kids who have never had an education will be able to exercise their liberty at the age of majority? Today, in 2007? You don't think that parents who refuse to educate their children are doing anything wrong, not violating the rights of their chidren during that time the child's rights are limited due to age? Amazing position to hold!

We FORCE children to be educated in this nation, right? We restrict the rights of children, correct? It seems that education is seen by the people as a needed component for a society of people who can exercise their liberty. So if you don't think education is needed for individuals to exercise their liberty, for individuals to even understand their liberty, rights, and how they interact with the rights of others, you are in a very small group.

If a state decided to do away with public education and only have private education, so that poor kids did not have a chance to get an education, that would be fine and constitutional in your mind? Hmmmm, too bad it was not constitutional when it came to minorities and women, but maybe you can make the case if it is poverty not race or sex that draws the line between kids educated and not.

To be honest, I think you are doing a diservice to the founders and the constitution itself. Clearly language that is open ended was included, such as "promote the general welfare" so that the laws can be shaped to the times. Clearly even Madison was big on leaving wiggle room, what with his idea of "Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility" that can cover just about anything.

You think we really need a constitutional amendment to have federal education programs, health care programs, etc. But it seems that the general welfare cause provides sufficient leeway, even with the restricted definition of "general welfare" you think the founders held, to allow for laws to be duly passed and enacted on such topics. You admit education is a federal concern, but you claim the constitution needs amending. That does not make sense. If they can't address it until an amendment is passed, then it is NOT currently a federal concern. Not until the guiding document of the federal system is changed.

No, you have failed to convince me that such programs need a constitutional amendment. At most, they need to be focused on how they affect the conditions on the ground of promoting liberty. That way they clearly will have the legislative intent of promoting the general welfare as strictly defined by us in this discussion, and by the founders in their time as well.


You have failed to reconcile the intent of a limited federal government with the general welfare clause.

So where does it stop? At some point the goverment start telling each and every one of us exactly how to live our lives? Will we only be concerned about liberty when it's gone? You seem to favor unlimited, unrestricted government intrusion into people's lives. The ultimate nanny state, where people aren't allowed to make "bad" decisions. THAT, is most certainly against what the Founders intended. They saw the slippery slope that mindset would lead us down and they limited the federal government for that very reason.

By your interpretation, why have Article 5 at all? I'm astounded by your statement that Congress can't address an issue until the Constitution is amended. Amending the Constitution begins in Congress.

In fact, by your interpretation, why do we even both with having states at all? Why not just absorb them into the federal fold and do away with all state and local level laws? Surely, the general welfare would be better provided for in that manner, no? Only the federal government knows best, right?

You have failed to reconcile the intent of a limited federal government with the general welfare clause.

So where does it stop? At some point the goverment start telling each and every one of us exactly how to live our lives?

Straw man and slippery slope.

You will note that I have been talking about education, and there is a fundamental difference between policies directed at children and adults. Children are not afforded full rights for very good reasons. Because of this the state has a higher standard when dealing with children than with adults, more of an interest in ensuring they will have the tools to live life under conditions of liberty.

Where does it stop? Simple, government has no business interfering with private action EXCEPT where that action violates rights, rights that are fundamental to the notion of liberty. Where fundamental rights are being violated and people do not have the freedom of "unrestricted action" that is exactly the point at which the government should step in. The government should step in a lot earlier when it comes to those who have restrictions on their rights such as children.

I never said people should not be able to make bad decisions. They should, that is part of liberty. But those bad decisions should not violate the rights of others, especially not the rights of those not allowed to exercise their full rights, as in the case of children. What I am saying is that the federal government does have a constitutional basis for promoting liberty via federal laws, duly passed and enacted, that do not have a SPECIFIC mention in the constitution. Education would be one good example. The entire underpinning of the constitution is that of the liberal ideal of individual freedom of action, and the government is expected, nay required, to create conditions where that can occur. It is the whole goal of the system.

You agreed to the definition of general welfare, and liberty. You seem to have agreed that the government has a legitimate role in promoting liberty. But now that the path those definitions lead us down goes against the very thing you have argued for you want to bail on the results. Seems to me you are putting one subsidiary goal (limited government) ahead of the core philosophical principle of liberty as essential to the general welfare.

Which is more important, liberty or limited government? One is the goal of the founders, the other is a method to the goal. You are putting a fetishistic level of import on the method and losing sight of the primary goal of the revolutionaries.

Which is more important, liberty or limited government? One is the goal of the founders, the other is a method to the goal. You are putting a fetishistic level of import on the method and losing sight of the primary goal of the revolutionaries.

Limited government is essential to liberty. Do we have more or less liberty today as opposed to 230 years ago? You say stopping government expansion is simple. I say you're wrong and the proof is in the US Code. Proponents of big government can't help themselves from "helping" everyone else at the expense of everyone else. You say you're only talking about education of children but I've never once seen a post from you calling for a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government. I do recall you opposing the pushing of certain programs (medicare/SSI) out to the states though. I believe that I recall you arguing against personal retirement funds in place of SSI. Why? Shouldn't people be allowed to make bad decisions? Isn't that part of liberty? Forgive me if I call BS when you or any other big federal government proponent tries to blow the "we can stop expanding" smoke up my ass. You can't and you know it.

I agree that education is important and should be federally provided for. It's important enough to be directly and specifically provided for via Constitutional amendment. Why oppose doing so?

Limited government is essential to liberty. Do we have more or less liberty today as opposed to 230 years ago? You say stopping government expansion is simple. I say you're wrong and the proof is in the US Code. Proponents of big government can't help themselves from "helping" everyone else at the expense of everyone else. You say you're only talking about education of children but I've never once seen a post from you calling for a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government. I do recall you opposing the pushing of certain programs (medicare/SSI) out to the states though. I believe that I recall you arguing against personal retirement funds in place of SSI. Why? Shouldn't people be allowed to make bad decisions? Isn't that part of liberty? Forgive me if I call BS when you or any other big federal government proponent tries to blow the "we can stop expanding" smoke up my ass. You can't and you know it.

I agree that education is important and should be federally provided for. It's important enough to be directly and specifically provided for via Constitutional amendment. Why oppose doing so?

If you want to get into the specifics of individual programs, this does not seem like the thread for that. This thread seems much more about general philosophy and the nature of liberty itself, and the role of government in promoting the general welfare. But...

There is a difference between deciding between current programs on a pragmatic basis (Will this improve things or make them worse? Which of these two plans will work better?) and what my theoretical desires for a "perfect" government might be. Were I to state my philosophical position clearly, it would be that government's role should be limited to punishing the violation of rights, not protecting rights. I have said that on this board before as well. Perhaps you missed that.

I don't oppose amending the constitution, I just don't think you have made the case that it is necessary. Education seems to me to be directly relevant to liberty, not only in theory but in the practice of this nation for generations. The general welfare clause allows it, and you have not shown me that it does not. I oppose amending the constitution unnecessarily. It ain't necessary. The department of education exists, it has not been ruled unconstitutional. Clearly if it were unconstitutional it would be gone by now, right? If it was so unconstitutional a challenge to it could be brought and succeed. So it seems you are wrong on this one, or at least the laws of the land and the supreme court's interpretations of those laws say you are wrong.

Do we have more liberty today than 230 years ago? Hell yes! I find it strange that you can even ask that question.

As a black man.

Ask a woman.

Ask someone who is blind, or deaf, or in a wheelchair.

Ask someone who was born on a farm, got a public education through college, and became a CEO.

We have WAY more liberty today than 230 years ago. Whole classes of people are not restricted by their race, gender, infirmity, age, and a whole list of factors that were used to keep people down in the days of the founders. You seem to forget that the founders were a bunch of rich, landed, powerful men who wrote from the position of rich, landed, powerful men. Women don't get the vote. Slaves count as 3/5 a person. Etc.

So yeah, when looking at the entire population I have absolutely no problem saying we have more liberty than 230 years ago. Or 100 years ago, or 50 years ago.

Were I to state my philosophical position clearly, it would be that government's role should be limited to punishing the violation of rights, not protecting rights.

Well my philosophical position clearly is to live in A World Without Justice.

Cuz,

To have justice, wrongdoing had to occur.

No wrongdoing, no need for justice.

So yeah, when looking at the entire population I have absolutely no problem saying we have more liberty than 230 years ago. Or 100 years ago, or 50 years ago.

Income is equally important to liberty as is education -- if not more so. About 30% of my income goes to the federal government alone every pay period. That does not include the other federal taxes I pay on various items such as gasoline or interest or utilities or my parent's estate, etc. I have far less liberty to live my life the way I'd like because of that. So, while some groups have seen an correction of inequality (achieved through amendment) everyone has seen a reduction in their ability to do the things they want because of the tax burden placed upon them by the ever expanding federal government. Is that not obstruction of liberty? I'd love to send my kid to private school because our federal public school system is a disaster. If I had the 20+% back that doesn't go to supporting the military and other essential functions, I could afford to do that for her. As it stands, her right to liberty as she reaches the age of majority is being endangered by the federal government.


Why amend? It signifies that a supermajority of the STATES support the measure and are willing to abdicate their liberty to the federal government.

Income is equally important to liberty as is education -- if not more so.

Income is only relevant when lack of income stops the requirements for exercising liberty from developing in children. Lack of prenatal care, lack of nutrition in the developmental years, etc. I think we can agree that children should be given the tools to hit the ground running when they get their full rights (mostly 18, other than drinking and a few other things perhaps). If for no other reason than it is cheaper than dealing with the results of neglect via the criminal justice system. We do know that neglected children find their way to crime, after all. Safety. Remember that safety and liberty that comprise the general welfare, as we have said.

I, for one, am not worried that your child will lack the tools to exercise liberty.

There is nothing wrong with income inequality per se. Are you trying to say I am for income EQUALITY? No. Please. I am for less income disparity, especially since we have seen that grow in recent years. I believe from my studies that a wide and broad middle class is a good thing in society. Small middle class with a large underclass, and a tiny elite, bad. But income inequality is not reducing liberty by its existence, but rather by the effects on some at the very bottom. Government rightly should reduce if not eliminate those effects. Feed the kids, get them to the doctor, provide functioning schools, etc.

Now, if you want to talk tax burden, Warren Buffet said that he pays a lower rate than his receptionist. Rates can be tinkered with. I have certainly advocated for changing some taxes around. The taxes that have been cut at the top have hit the middle hard via state, local, and property taxes. Bad and shortsighted tax policy, imo.

You claim less liberty because you can't afford certain luxuries like expensive schools and (we may presume) full zoot bikes? You are twisting the definition of liberty pretty hard to get that. You GAIN stuff from the government. You get the highways, you get the courts to enforce your contracts, you get medicare when you retire, you get unemployment insurance, you get TONS of stuff that enables you to live your life.

No one is stopping you from making more money. That is the solution to your "problems". You need more money, not more liberty. Liberty is what lets you decide to get out there and make the coin for that private school, or not. And the public education system is what makes that a CHOICE for you, not a tragedy for your child if you can't afford the private tuition.

If you want to amend, why not amend to remove the general welfare clause, and another amendment to remove the commerce clause? Because there is a ton of settled law hanging on those two principles. Two simple amendments, tons of governmental programs taken down at a swoop. Go for it. It not only limits the federal government in principle, but slashes it in size.

You claim less liberty because you can't afford certain luxuries like expensive schools and (we may presume) full zoot bikes? You are twisting the definition of liberty pretty hard to get that. You GAIN stuff from the government. You get the highways, you get the courts to enforce your contracts, you get medicare when you retire, you get unemployment insurance, you get TONS of stuff that enables you to live your life.

No one is stopping you from making more money. That is the solution to your "problems". You need more money, not more liberty. Liberty is what lets you decide to get out there and make the coin for that private school, or not. And the public education system is what makes that a CHOICE for you, not a tragedy for your child if you can't afford the private tuition.

Gotta love the bootstraps mentality. Instead of me getting a second job to pay for essential services my kid needs, how 'bout the government cut my taxes by 70% so I can afford to pay for those services myself? I'm not looking for expensive schools, I'm looking for competent ones. Our public school system is an embarrassment. I do make enough money to afford a private school for my kid. Problem is that the federal government takes so much of it away from me I can't provide a decent education for her. I'd love to not have to pay into that failing system. We had public schools long before the USDE was created in 1980. Thanks to the federal government, my kid's teachers now spend all of 1 hour/week on history/geography/social studies. Why? Because it's not required for to meet the NCLB standards. Math, reading, science? It's all about teaching to the test. Don't get me started on the quality of our schools, they're a joke. If the fed legislated tenure and unions away, perhaps we'd get somewhere. Failing that, it's just another thing to tax me for above and beyond what I pay in my property taxes.


Regarding medicare and SSI.... I'd rather handle my own retirement fund, thank you. Another example of "Government knows best!" Courts? Yep, don't mind paying taxes for that. Highways? I pay a lot of taxes for them, and tolls too, yet our infrastructure is failing. Good job Uncle Sam!


Unemployment insurance is paid for by my employer and handled at the state level according to federal guidelines -- the way it is supposed to be done. (of course, the Fed still takes its cut though)

Nothing you listed can't be done at the state level -- where it was intended to be done.

Gotta love the bootstraps mentality. Instead of me getting a second job to pay for essential services my kid needs, how 'bout the government cut my taxes by 70% so I can afford to pay for those services myself? I'm not looking for expensive schools, I'm looking for competent ones. Our public school system is an embarrassment. I do make enough money to afford a private school for my kid. Problem is that the federal government takes so much of it away from me I can't provide a decent education for her. I'd love to not have to pay into that failing system. We had public schools long before the USDE was created in 1980. Thanks to the federal government, my kid's teachers now spend all of 1 hour/week on history/geography/social studies. Why? Because it's not required for to meet the NCLB standards. Math, reading, science? It's all about teaching to the test. Don't get me started on the quality of our schools, they're a joke. If the fed legislated tenure and unions away, perhaps we'd get somewhere. Failing that, it's just another thing to tax me for above and beyond what I pay in my property taxes.


Regarding medicare and SSI.... I'd rather handle my own retirement fund, thank you. Another example of "Government knows best!" Courts? Yep, don't mind paying taxes for that. Highways? I pay a lot of taxes for them, and tolls too, yet our infrastructure is failing. Good job Uncle Sam!


Unemployment insurance is paid for by my employer and handled at the state level according to federal guidelines -- the way it is supposed to be done. (of course, the Fed still takes its cut though)

Nothing you listed can't be done at the state level -- where it was intended to be done.


You complain about your schools? Strange, because my public schools are GREAT, and we have the same fed hanging over us with the same NCLB bs. And if your schools suck it is not because of federal funds, but rather because of the people that live around you. And no, the government has no right to stop your neighbors from being morons.

Whether or not a law is a good law or not as in the case of NCLB does not mean the same thing as if it were constitutional or not.

You have strayed far from the core concepts of liberty and general welfare. Not only have you strayed from the defintions you agreed to (I have had to remind you of them several times), but you don't even mention the terms in your last post at all. If you just want to rant about taxes, fine with me, go ahead. I thought you wanted a nice philosophical discussion about the general welfare clause, and liberty, and such. But it seems not. So rant away, rant away.

You complain about your schools? Strange, because my public schools are GREAT, and we have the same fed hanging over us with the same NCLB bs. And if your schools suck it is not because of federal funds, but rather because of the people that live around you. And no, the government has no right to stop your neighbors from being morons.

Whether or not a law is a good law or not as in the case of NCLB does not mean the same thing as if it were constitutional or not.

You have strayed far from the core concepts of liberty and general welfare. Not only have you strayed from the defintions you agreed to (I have had to remind you of them several times), but you don't even mention the terms in your last post at all. If you just want to rant about taxes, fine with me, go ahead. I thought you wanted a nice philosophical discussion about the general welfare clause, and liberty, and such. But it seems not. So rant away, rant away.

Is America's school performance better or worse since the Fed got involved? What are the benefits of the Fed getting involved in our public schools?

Is America better or worse off because of the Interstate system and the suburban sprawl it created?

Is the average American in better or worse financial shape compared to 50 years ago?

To say taxes aren't relevant is ridiculous because the programs you advocate to provide for the "general welfare" take money out of the pockets of all Americans. Your liberty stops at mine. You have not answered the question as to why these programs are better off in the federal sphere as opposed to the state level.




I'm glad your kids are in good public schools. You're in the minority.

Income is equally important to liberty as is education -- if not more so. About 30% of my income goes to the federal government alone every pay period. That does not include the other federal taxes I pay on various items such as gasoline or interest or utilities or my parent's estate, etc. I have far less liberty to live my life the way I'd like because of that. So, while some groups have seen an correction of inequality (achieved through amendment) everyone has seen a reduction in their ability to do the things they want because of the tax burden placed upon them by the ever expanding federal government. Is that not obstruction of liberty? I'd love to send my kid to private school because our federal public school system is a disaster. If I had the 20+% back that doesn't go to supporting the military and other essential functions, I could afford to do that for her. As it stands, her right to liberty as she reaches the age of majority is being endangered by the federal government.

Why amend? It signifies that a supermajority of the STATES support the measure and are willing to abdicate their liberty to the federal government.

2 Kings 6:28-30 :

""This woman said to me, "Give up your child for us to eat today, and we will eat mine tomorrow." So we cooked my son and ate him; but when I said to her the next day, "Now give up your child for us to eat," she had hidden him.""

2 Kings 6:28-30 :

""This woman said to me, "Give up your child for us to eat today, and we will eat mine tomorrow." So we cooked my son and ate him; but when I said to her the next day, "Now give up your child for us to eat," she had hidden him.""


All religious nutcases should be killed and eaten. Well, maybe not eaten. That's kinda nasty. Definitely killed though.

All religious nutcases should be killed and eaten. Well, maybe not eaten. That's kinda nasty. Definitely killed though.

So, what I hear you sayin' KenB, is that you'd PROMOTE genocide to PROVIDE for your kid the means to go to "private school," funded by the booty, the assets of the murdered?

Of my 2 Kings citation , KenB, "This woman" is you.

So, what I hear you sayin' KenB, is that you'd PROMOTE genocide to PROVIDE for your kid the means to go to a private school, funded by the booty, the assets of the murdered?

Of my 2 Kings citation , KenB, "This woman" is you.


Actually, what I was saying was that I didn't consider your post or that religion in any way meritorious.

Actually, what I was saying was that I didn't consider your post or that religion in any way meritorious.

As illustrative of yet another fall, apparently The LORD thought Israel lacked merit too.

Of my post, the story makes for a juicy parallel to your so-called "liberty" complaint here on rbr, so I wouldn't expect you to be happy with the accuracy of my observation.

As illustrative of yet another fall, apparently God thought Israel lacked merit too.

Of my post, the story makes for a juicy parallel to your so-called "liberty" complaint here on rbr, so I wouldn't expect you to be happy with the accuracy of my observation.



Meh..

Is America's school performance better or worse since the Fed got involved? What are the benefits of the Fed getting involved in our public schools?

Is America better or worse off because of the Interstate system and the suburban sprawl it created?

Is the average American in better or worse financial shape compared to 50 years ago?

To say taxes aren't relevant is ridiculous because the programs you advocate to provide for the "general welfare" take money out of the pockets of all Americans. Your liberty stops at mine. You have not answered the question as to why these programs are better off in the federal sphere as opposed to the state level.


Given desegregation, and equal education for girls, which the federal government played a role in, overall better.

The average american family has a tougher time staying in the middle class than 50 years ago, but as I have said here before income inequality plays a role in that to a large extent, and taxes are a relatively minor part of that. Symptom, not cause. Costs of education, housing, transportation and health care have gone up and much higher than the rate of inflation for a good long time now, and of that only education costs can really be directly tied to taxes for state schools. And that mostly as tuition at state colleges goes up... because of cuts in taxes at the state level, and the erosion of the value of pell grants and such at the federal level. Just for an example, in my state in the past 20 years the budget for the colleges is down 66 million, and for corrections up 68 million. Guess what the less money to the colleges meant for tuition?

I never said taxes were irrelevant, just not central, and NOT an issue of constitutionality. The notions of taxes and their levels is not relevant, the notion of YOUR taxes and what YOU think they should be is not relevant at the CONSTITUTIONAL level. If you want to talk about pragmatic tax policy, fine. But it is not a philosophical constitutional question, but a governance question.

Properly, these programs at the federal level are better than at the state level when state level programs are not working in a way as to provide the tools for exercising liberty. As in racial and gender inequality in education, as in when those living in poverty are not getting the basics of education. NCLB is bad law, but it is focused on making sure "underperforming" groups improve. So it does fall under the general welfare clause as I have been discussing it.

2 Kings 6:28-30 :

""This woman said to me, "Give up your child for us to eat today, and we will eat mine tomorrow." So we cooked my son and ate him; but when I said to her the next day, "Now give up your child for us to eat," she had hidden him.""

Did they like barbecue the child? Seems like something like that would have to roast for most of the day, in a cooker. Did they serve, slaw, hush puppies and sweet tea on the side?

Given desegregation, and equal education for girls, which the federal government played a role in, overall better.

The average american family has a tougher time staying in the middle class than 50 years ago, but as I have said here before income inequality plays a role in that to a large extent, and taxes are a relatively minor part of that. Symptom, not cause. Costs of education, housing, transportation and health care have gone up and much higher than the rate of inflation for a good long time now, and of that only education costs can really be directly tied to taxes for state schools. And that mostly as tuition at state colleges goes up... because of cuts in taxes at the state level, and the erosion of the value of pell grants and such at the federal level. Just for an example, in my state in the past 20 years the budget for the colleges is down 66 million, and for corrections up 68 million. Guess what the less money to the colleges meant for tuition?

I never said taxes were irrelevant, just not central, and NOT an issue of constitutionality. The notions of taxes and their levels is not relevant, the notion of YOUR taxes and what YOU think they should be is not relevant at the CONSTITUTIONAL level. If you want to talk about pragmatic tax policy, fine. But it is not a philosophical constitutional question, but a governance question.

Properly, these programs at the federal level are better than at the state level when state level programs are not working in a way as to provide the tools for exercising liberty. As in racial and gender inequality in education, as in when those living in poverty are not getting the basics of education. NCLB is bad law, but it is focused on making sure "underperforming" groups improve. So it does fall under the general welfare clause as I have been discussing it.


The reasons you list for better school performance are a direct result of civil rights law, not the DoE and they are a perfect example of the government stepping in and promoting the general welfare as intended.

Taxes are cut at the state level because the expectation has been, wrongly, shifted to the federal government. As you said, "properly, these programs are better...." but the problem is that they're seldom done properly. No federal representative knows the needs of his state better than the state legislature does. While it's true that keeping things to the state level potentially creates inconsistencies between them, with some performing better than others, bad law at the federal level brings them all down -- as we have seen over the past 50 years in education. Inequalities in state programs and tax rates can and does create competition between them. States that don't provide for their citizens will find that they have a dwindling tax base. Federal civil right and labor laws, which promote the general welfare, will prevent those states from becoming cesspools of slave labor. The voters in the state will correct the situation by demanding better/more services.

All of our children now are finding it harder to compete on the world market and finding it harder to compete on the US market because of bad federal legislation in education and commerce -- because of programs and laws purported to be promoting the general welfare. Even with the best of intentions -- SSI -- there is harm in that people expect, regardless of the original intent, SSI to serve as a retirement fund. We all know it isn't and never was meant that way but the expectation of the people is there nonetheless and people end up losing their houses and living in poverty because of it. Better to let the states tailor programs to their citizen's wants/needs.

The Constitutional issues I have with taxes aren't with the taxes themselves but the programs those taxes support. The states should be taxing to provide the services their citizens demand, not the fed. What we have now are mostly poorly performing federal programs and almost no state programs. This is a mostly post-WWII phenomenon and, the problem we have when comparing before and after, is the lack of civil rights legislation and enforcement before. The improvements in civil rights has masked the larger downslide in overall performance.

The federal government, when acting in Constitutionally intended ways (Civil rights legislation/labor laws) does well in promoting the general welfare. The federal government, when trying to provide for the general welfare almost always fails and often makes the overall situation worse. This is my issue. Push the services to the states where they belong and were intended. The process of amendment is the proper method because it indicates that the states acquiesce that the fed can do it better. Over-broad interpretations of the general welfare clause, used to provide services at the federal level over the wishes of the states, have done more harm than good because of politics in general and because no federal legislature can better know the needs of specific states better than the legislatures of those states.

The reasons you list for better school performance are ....

I am not going to have time for the next 4-5 days to continue this. At least. Didn't even read this last post at all, to be honest.

My suggestion is that you look over what we have been talking about and break some of the policy issues out into new threads, maybe that will get others involved (since many seem to be sitting back and watching on this one). There is some good stuff here to work with, but I gots me too much work to do to get into it. Did for the past couple days for that matter.

I am not going to have time for the next 4-5 days to continue this. At least. Didn't even read this last post at all, to be honest.

My suggestion is that you look over what we have been talking about and break some of the policy issues out into new threads, maybe that will get others involved (since many seem to be sitting back and watching on this one). There is some good stuff here to work with, but I gots me too much work to do to get into it. Did for the past couple days for that matter.

I have read some of the posts but I must admit, I find it hard to follow. Defining liberty seems pretty straightforward to me and it has nothing to do with your personal financial situation. The degree of liberty one has is the degeree to which one can live without intrusion or regulation from an outside controlling force. That force is usually seen as govt. but it can be any number of things from parental/family to employers.I believe employers would not really be seen as restrictive because that is a voluntary situation from which an individual can remove themselves at will. Liberty will always, of necessity, be defined and limited by social constraints when an individual is part of a larger group. Liberty seems to me to be the degree to which you can practice your own free will.

I am not going to have time for the next 4-5 days to continue this. At least. Didn't even read this last post at all, to be honest.

My suggestion is that you look over what we have been talking about and break some of the policy issues out into new threads, maybe that will get others involved (since many seem to be sitting back and watching on this one). There is some good stuff here to work with, but I gots me too much work to do to get into it. Did for the past couple days for that matter.


I agree and I haven't had nearly the time required for the proper effort (remember that Lounge thread I put in about the job?).

Liberty seems to me to be the degree to which you can practice your own free will.

No argument there, I think, from any side. The issues, at least as discussed here, and specifically in regard to education, is if you are uneducated how much liberty do you really have? Should the federal government create programs and provide services to equalize the situation OR should the federal government, by means of equal rights legislation and even legislation requiring that certain minimum standards be met, promote the general welfare while leaving the states free to legislate, regulate and tax according to their specific needs and wants? Also, if federal services are to be provided, should said expansion of require a Constitutional amendment?

Did they like barbecue the child? Seems like something like that would have to roast for most of the day, in a cooker. Did they serve, slaw, hush puppies and sweet tea on the side?

Donkey's head and locust-beans. -2 Kings 6:25

No argument there, I think, from any side. The issues, at least as discussed here, and specifically in regard to education, is if you are uneducated how much liberty do you really have? Should the federal government create programs and provide services to equalize the situation OR should the federal government, by means of equal rights legislation and even legislation requiring that certain minimum standards be met, promote the general welfare while leaving the states free to legislate, regulate and tax according to their specific needs and wants? Also, if federal services are to be provided, should said expansion of require a Constitutional amendment?

I can't see where liberty has anything to do with your level of education. Education gives you more options but not more freedom of choice. I believe any government regulation or law is an intrusion upon personal liberty. That isn't to say that it isn't nesessary to the structure of society but where it intrudes upon personal rights, yes, it should require an ammendment or close examination by the legal system to determine constitutionality. If the populace disagrees with the final legal outcome, then the ammendment process is the road to take.

Meh..

Is that a call from you to the Egyptian Goddess?

Donkey's head and locust-beans. -2 Kings 6:25

Did they use charcoal or gas?

My suggestion is that you look over what we have been talking about and break some of the policy issues out into new threads, maybe that will get others involved (since many seem to be sitting back and watching on this one).

I agree, this thread lacks inclusively.

I can't see where liberty has anything to do with your level of education. Education gives you more options but not more freedom of choice. I believe any government regulation or law is an intrusion upon personal liberty. That isn't to say that it isn't nesessary to the structure of society but where it intrudes upon personal rights, yes, it should require an ammendment or close examination by the legal system to determine constitutionality. If the populace disagrees with the final legal outcome, then the ammendment process is the road to take.

My goodness, Snake, I think we may be on the same general page in this one. :)

My goodness, Snake, I think we may be on the same general page in this one. :)

I cannot agree. Democracy is not just a system of government, it is a consciousness, a culture. If that culture is not reproduced through education...in the young...a democracy is surely doomed to become maybe a tyranny or plutocracy?

I cannot agree. Democracy is not just a system of government, it is a consciousness, a culture. If that culture is not reproduced through education...in the young...a democracy is surely doomed to become maybe a tyranny or plutocracy?

The U.S. is pretty well educated and that hasn't stopped us from farking up our democracy...

I cannot agree. Democracy is not just a system of government, it is a consciousness, a culture. If that culture is not reproduced through education...in the young...a democracy is surely doomed to become maybe a tyranny or plutocracy?

Keep in mind, and this is essential to this discussion, that we're not talking about disallowing government from supporting/providing education in any way (at least I'm not). What we are discussing is the US federal government using a very broad interpretation of "promote the general welfare" to usurp what was intended to be the role and responsibility of the individual states AND that, if the states/People wish the federal government to provide those services that a Constitutional amendment is required.

Historically, our federal government does not do well when providing services.

Keep in mind, and this is essential to this discussion, that we're not talking about disallowing government from supporting/providing education in any way (at least I'm not). What we are discussing is the US federal government using a very broad interpretation of "promote the general welfare" to usurp what was intended to be the role and responsibility of the individual states AND that, if the states/People wish the federal government to provide those services that a Constitutional amendment is required.

Historically, our federal government does not do well when providing services.

There can be no general welfare without democracy.

There can be no democracy without education.

There can be no general welfare without democracy.

There can be no democracy without education.



That is not what we are discussing.

The U.S. is pretty well educated and that hasn't stopped us from farking up our democracy...


You mean our "Idiocracy", right?

That is not what we are discussing.

The US constitution instructs the federal gov. to 'promote the general welfare' does it not?

...which I argued necessarily requires democracy...which itself necessarily requires education?

The US constitution instructs the federal gov. to 'promote the general welfare' does it not?

...which I argued necessarily requires democracy...which itself necessarily requires education?

There is a difference between promoting and providing. You're failing to acknowledge the role of the state legislatures and the purpose of the 10th amendment. In fact, the entire federalist view point fails to acknowledge these things.

Did they use charcoal or gas?

Maybe cedar chips.

Promote is the operative word, not to be confused with provide. Promoting the general welfare would be passing legislation that says you can't burn plastics because it poisons your neighbor's air and, subsequently, him (unobstructed action that does not violate the rights of others/protection from being poisoned). Providing for the general welfare would be passing legislation that establishes a new tax to provide some form of service (education/health care/retirement fund).

In regard to funding educational programs... liberty does not require an education. People are at liberty to do as they wish regardless of education and they are at liberty to seek an education... or not. Is not taxing me to provide another an education infringing on my liberty to use my money as I see fit?

Compared to providing for the common defense, where Congress is Constitutionally authorized to act. Promote vs. provide.

That said, I do believe that education is a federal concern. I believe it should be provided for Constitutionally and specifically. I feel the same way about infrastructure and, possibly, even healthcare. But do it in a Constitutionally correct manner: Amendment.

Why? Because it's hard and should be hard. If we isn't, we run the risk of rationalizing everything imaginable as promoting the general welfare. How about GPS tracking implants for everyone so we know where they are incase they go missing? How about the government take over the management of everyone's finances because people are too stupid to manage their own properly? Or only allowing people to eat red meat once a week because more than that is bad for them? Or that cycling on the road just isn't worth the risk to drivers? Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line and say "Dude, you need to provide for yourself."?

Of the six reasons for writing the Constitution listed in the Preamble, six different verb forms are utilized for each reason. The difference between "provide" and "promote" in the fourth and fifth reasons listed -- "...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,..." -- serves to distinguish the absolute necessity of providing for maximum defense before spending resources on lesser needs. Provide means tax and spend for all necessary defense needs, even though, at the time, each citizen acting on his second amendment right made for a substantial part of the defense, compared to our aircraft carrriers, et al, of the present.

As to "general welfare," "promote" means help.

In section 8 though, there is no use of the verb form "promote;" it reads "...provide for the common defense and general welfare...," in reference to and limited to the 17 expressd powers that follow in the section. The last power, the18th, the so-called "elastic clause," is to be interpreted as that which is needed to execute the 17 specific powers, and not, as Madison mocked his opponents in essay number 41 of the Federalist Papers KenB posted, beyond the seventeen.

Very briefly here though, I don't think a constitutional amendment is necessary for the Federal Government to be legally in the education business, for in order to do all that claimed in the 18 powers -- and in everything else written for the other two branches too -- does require a minimum of education. It requires quite a bit of education actually, and if some richer states had way better schools than poorer ones, and these better-educated became the electees and the electees' appointees, including military and judicial appointees, some states then, would run the government, some states would run other states.