The General Welfare Clause

There has been much written about the general welfare clause in the U.S. Constitution. Two good articles are here and here.

I believe congress will use the "promote the general welfare" clause as an excuse for many laws and regulations that in fact harm the general welfare. Congress has created a nation of dependents. That is not promoting the general welfare of the union. These laws have demoted the general welfare of the United States. Congress should be promoting self reliance, confidence and independence in the citizens.

Tribes and groups have always advocated for the general welfare of the group. It is in the best interest of the individual to look after their own welfare, even if it means taking something from others. This was more efficient in small tribes where those who did not produce were shunned or even expelled. Men who did not produce something for the general welfare did not get to mate. But, in large tribes, non producers are mostly invisible to the producers, while producers are visible and vilified as greedy and evil people. Promoting the general welfare in large tribes rewards non production and punishes production.

It is estimated that when the latest government health care is implemented that 70% of the population will be receiving more from the government than they are paying in. This is not promoting the general welfare of the country.

It could be argued that the U.S. invasion of Mexico, though immoral, promoted the general welfare of the U.S. though it harmed the general welfare of Mexico.

The Lousiana Purchase promoted the general welfare of the United States, though the American Indians did not have a say in the purchase of their land.

It could be argued that the invasion of the Confederate States of America was promoting the general welfare of the United States, though it cost 600,000 lives! Legally, yes. But, morally, to prohibit people from declaring their independence, I believe harmed not only the general welfare of the United States but the general welfare of people all over the world who want the right to declare their independence.

Legally it would be a sound argument that the creation of the Federal Reserve, a private bank for bankers, was promoting the general welfare. Legally yes. But did its inflationary policies promote the general welfare? I say no.

Congress critters have taken an oath to uphold the constitution. So have many other government mobsters. They are required to obey the constitution. I am not. I did not sign the constitution. To me it is authority only over those who swear to uphold it. It has authority over all government employees. It has no authority over me.

"Anyone who can walk to the welfare office can walk to work". Al Capp

Bilbo Baggins