“General Welfare” and “Climate Change”

Posted by freedomforall 5 months ago to Government
9 comments | Share | Flag

Excerpt:
"Why do we have unlimited government? Probably because the document that was supposed to limit it has done the opposite.

People were told the federal government could do no more than was specified – as in clearly described – by the Constitution, which supposedly enumerated its powers and left those not specifically enumerated to the states and the people (via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution).

So why does the federal government have power over essentially everything? Including over such things as how much gas the vehicles we’re allowed to buy may use? The answer is because the Constitution endowed the federal government with unlimited powers, without enumerating them.

But how did it do that?

Via the wording of the Constitution. Including words with open-ended definitions designed to be amendable to parsing in such a way as to countenance any power those in power (or grasping after it) wished to assert.

Wording such as “general welfare” – and “necessary and proper.” By incorporating such words – which can mean almost anything as they are matters of opinion – the lawyers who wrote the Constitution assured the federal government would assume unlimited power. "
--------------------------------------------

Don't miss the comments on this article.
They warm the hearts of Gulch dwellers.
SOURCE URL: https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2023/09/30/general-welfare-and-climate-change/#comment-971061


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by mshupe 5 months ago
    To me, it is rotten to state or imply that Madison, Hamilton & Co. inserted this language to undermine their own creation. One that they knew was radical, morally defensible, and highly experimental. To me, it, is fair to state or imply that this language has opened a can of worms that have been exploited by the enemies of Constitution and Declaration - the Democratic Party. So, what happened?

    These were brilliant and courageous political philosophers. They were avid students and advocates of John Locke and Aristotle, but the philosophical ideas of the Enlightenment were also influenced by Rousseau, Descartes, and Plato. In essence, it was the Christian moral code of altruism that was still in play, and I think accounts for the flaws of the General Welfare clauses.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 months ago
      The fact that the Hamilton was so opposed to the Bill of Rights is damning evidence of his intent.
      Hamilton was described by other founders as a monarchist and wanted a powerful central government headed by a president with king-like powers.
      https://compassjournal.org/https-alex...
      Since Hamilton is so revered by the State propagandists, I'm sure you can find
      20 or more articles online that disagree with this opinion. ;^)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by mshupe 5 months ago
        I can probably find a lot more than that, but you make a critical error. You presume that I care what you think. However, I have seen more than one article on the subject that are extraordinary in their scholarship and objectivity. Regarding the State propagandists, I'll continue to rely on the likes of you for updates when I'm out slumming.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 months ago
    God what bullshit! When I was a kid, car companies were routinely accused of “planned obsolescence” implying that a car could be made without defect and should last forever. The nasty manufacturers were withholding the knowledge in order to increase profits.

    What these fools never do is offer up a detailed re-write of the Constitution instructing We the People on how the Document ought to be changed to conform with their mental image of what Limited Government should be.

    There are provisions for a Constitutional Convention of the States. Maybe the author could submit a list intended to right the wrongs and submit them to a candid world?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 5 months ago
      j_IR1776wg Thanks for the thought.

      A little project in fantasy writing-

      The conspiracy has come to light, this is the (un)true story: when I was in electronics a group of us decided to spend a few days extra checking out cheaper components. Yes, extra design costs, but we convinced managers that the cost of the built product was lower, and above all, it would wear out much faster!

      The idea spread. Industry became dedicated to producing poorer designs that would increase sales.
      All was going well until, a less well educated competitor (Japan) came into the marketplace.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 months ago
      I can see the writer's point, having read the Articles of Confederation, and both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.
      If the Federalists had had their way there would be no Bill of Rights at all, and we would most certainly be unarmed and defenseless.
      The Anti-Federalist Papers are an amazing compendium of the arguments of those who wanted to limit government and thereby ensure individual liberty.
      Free read or download:
      https://archive.org/details/TheAntiFe...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 months ago
        I, too, have read these documents. What made me angry was the author implying that the Constitution was written to fail. That these Founding scoundrels were working to introduce dictatorship on the unwashed sometime in the future as if the venture was a conspiracy.

        The truth is that creating a new form of government is incredibly difficult, not possible for one man alone, and given human nature, damn near impossible for like-minded men working collectively.

        Federalist 51 nailed the problem perfectly: “…But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself…”

        That our Government no longer is obliged "to control itself" is hardly the fault of the framers of the Constitution.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 months ago
          I think that Hamilton, and others were well aware of the vague language and how it could be used to
          expand government power, and it was used intentionally for that purpose.
          The fact that the Federalists were so opposed to the Bill of Rights is damning evidence of their intent, imo.
          (But we don't have to agree. ;^)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo