Why did I know that you would take issue with the General Welfare clause, Cy? The Government of We the People is empowered to promote the General Welfare of We the People or, as you claimed above to PROMOTE the General WELL BEING of We the People. So let's take a good hard look at what Well Being actually means in the CONTEXT of our present day society here in America. Yes, it is a complex subject but we can stick to the broad categories to establish a basis for this discussion. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-being-definition-types-and-well-being-skills All 5 aspects are interconnected and if one isn't working the rest suffer. IOW's if you are physically sick you do NOT have the ability to engage in Work which negatively impacts your Workplace Well-Being and your Societal Well-Being and it can have a negative impact on your Emotional Well-Being and Social Well-Being. Unless you have an argument with that logic regarding how the 5 aspects of Well-Being are interconnected you would have to agree that being physically sick is a major impediment to OVERALL Well-Being. How about Workplace Well-Being? If you are being UNDERPAID and EXPLOITED by your employer how does that enable you to pursue your values, interests and purpose in order to gain meaning, happiness and professional enrichment? Only 19% of Americans believe that they are being what they are worth. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/indeed-survey-few-americans-think-they-earn-enough-money.html That means that EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT of Americans do NOT have Workplace Well-Being! Now let's take a step back and view our society from a 30,000' perspective. We have a crumbling infrastructure and an Opioid Epidemic. We have a seriously DIVIDED nation and virtually nothing in the way of Common Ground to address any of the Societal Issues that are NEGATIVELY impacting our Societal Well-Being. We are NOT participating in a thriving community, culture, and environment. As far as Emotional Well-Being goes we rank DOWN in 18th place on the Happiest Nations listings. This is how we measured OURSELVES based upon the responses we provided. Bear in mind this survey is directed at WELL-BEING. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report When it comes to Physical Well-Being we are obese and stressed out and suffering from the diseases connected to obesity and stress. In summary we FAIL on every measure of Well-Being! According to you, the Government OF the People and FOR the People has an OBLIGATION to PROMOTE our GENERAL WELL-BEING! That means that the Government OF the People should be passing laws REQUIRING employers to pay LIVING WAGES! It also means that it should be either providing healthcare or REQUIRING that employers provide healthcare or PAY enough so that hardworking Americans can AFFORD private healthcare. It means that the Government OF the People should be RAISING TAXES to repair the crumbling infrastructure and UNITING We the People. We can discuss the specifics and find COMPROMISES but the PRINCIPLE that the Government OF the People and FOR the People has an OBLIGATION TO the People to PROMOTE their WELL-BEING is a documented FACT right there in the CONSTITION, Cy. The Well-Being of our NATION is at stake here. You can be certain that when it comes to evaluating which candidate is going to EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS our LACK of Well-Being is going to a major priority when it comes to my choice in 2020. And it goes without saying that the egocentric BLOTUS is doing more HARM to the Well-Being of We the People on a daily basis. Hopefully he will be DEFEATED in the GOP Primaries by someone sane like Kusich so that there is a viable alternative when it comes to General Election.
Let me clarify briefly, Te. There is no doubt that American presidents and congresses have had the ability to create legal welfare programs of all kinds LONG AFTER the Founding Fathers of this nation established the United States of America. Thus, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, et al, have had ample, legal opportunities to morph this country over into one that has become increasingly dependent on all kinds of "socialism-lite" programs and mechanisms. Moreover, as these programs, like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, were inarguably MANDATORY, along the government taking money right out of the pockets of working taxpayers to pay for them, the changes were made permanent! We can surely agree on that. It was well over 150 years AFTER this country had been founded as an independent nation that the Democrat Party started leveraging welfare programs in order to gain votes in elections. And now, in 2019, this is all still going on -- full force! But you are flat-out wrong to say that all this "Well-being" stuff you've cited was part of either the foundation of this country, or the documents establishing this country's creation. All of these 'social programs' and extrapolations on themes of 'well-being' were subsequent accretions and additions -- they had nothing to do with the way this country was set up or anyting involved in the thinking of such men as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, and on and on....
I hate to burst your bubble again, Cy, but the Founding Fathers instituted the FIRST social welfare program in the form of the Marine Hospital Act in 1799. This was first proposed by Hamilton in 1792 and supported by Jefferson, Adams and George Washington who had secretly had all of his troops inoculated against Smallpox in 1777 during the Revolutionary war. I highly recommend that you read this entire interview for yourself because it gives a very good overview of EXACTLY how the Founding Fathers perceived the General Welfare clause and what steps they took because of healthcare issues within the colonies. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113543985 In essence the Founding Fathers used the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses as the basis for empowering the federal government to enact welfare based legislation that dealt with healthcare related issues across the nation so unfortunately you are wrong about your "150 years". It was closer to ONE YEAR AFTER the DOI (1777) and ten years BEFORE the Constitution was adopted in 1787. The concept of the General Welfare of We the People was an IMMEDIATE issue for the Founding Fathers and they took it seriously.
You may want to ask yourself that if the creation of the Marine Hospital Service was indicative of some desire to set up a 'universal healthcare system', why didn't the same Founding Fathers set up identical hospital systems throughout the colonies/country for EVERYBODY...?! Clearly, that was not their intent at all, and no such thing was formally set up at the Federal level for many, many years afterward. "The Marine Hospital Service was an organization of Marine Hospitals dedicated to the care of ill and disabled seamen in the United States Merchant Marine, the U.S. Coast Guard and other federal beneficiaries." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Hospital_Service . Honestly, I'd never heard of it before, but I'm not surprised that the Founding Fathers did make provisions for the care of those in the naval service(s). "The origins of the Marine Hospital Service can be traced to the passage, by the 5th Congress of the United States, of 'An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen' in 1798. This act created Marine Hospitals to care for sick seamen." Interestingly, even way back then, the program was set up with mandatory withdrawals of tax money from the seamen themselves -- a "mandated" health service if you will: "It authorized a tax, which was the deduction of twenty cents per month from the wages of the seamen. This tax raised funds for physicians and to support the network of hospitals. Funding for the hospitals was provided by a mandatory tax of about 1% of the wages of all maritime sailors." It is an interesting 'side-bar', though, to an overall discussion about when and how the Federal Government first began to provide various services to those who labored in the national interest -- paid and otherwise. Of course, this 'Marine Hospital Service' can scarcely be compared to anything approaching the scope or depth of today's full-blown welfare smorgasbord being shoveled out by the government. Moreover, I would argue that if "general welfare" as you imagine it existed in the minds of the Founding Fathers was, in fact, a priority of any kind, it would have been fleshed-out in some kind of detail in the Constitution -- beyond a mere mention of a phrase which in "19th-century speak" clearly meant "well-being" and freedom from the oppression of a smothering, tyrannical central government.... It was a very interesting look into an obscure topic I appreciate your having brought into the discussion. But as proof that the founders of the country envisioned setting up some kind of 'cradle-to-grave' welfare system for everybody? Sorry, Te... as they say down South, "That dog don't hunt."
Did you not read the entire link, Cy? The Founding Fathers were dealing with multiple EPIDEMICS! They passed other legislation to ensure that there were QUARANTINE REGULATIONS so as to keep the diseases from spreading. Had they known what we do today about how to TREAT and PREVENT these epidemics they would have set up clinics nationwide to inoculate the entire population because they DEPENDED upon a HEALTHY population to DEFEND the nation. Those epidemics were also a problem for commerce since that is how the diseases were communicated. Shipping was one of the means of the spread. The Founding Fathers took the General Welfare of We the People very seriously because the "health of the nation" would have an impact upon the SURVIVAL of the nation. And yes, they DID "flesh it out" in the Constitution by INCLUDING the General Welfare in the COMMERCE clause. They then passed LEGISLATION in Congress that expanded upon what was stipulated in the Constitution itself. For instance the concept of a Well Regulated Militia is mentioned in the Commerce Clause as; It was again mentioned in the 2nd Amendment and made into Legislation with the Militia Acts of 1792. The same picture emerges with the mention of the General Welfare in the Commerce clause followed by the Quarantine Acts and the Marine Hospitals as well specifically assigning funding to these programs to put them into place across the entire nation. These continued to be enforced with outbreaks of Cholera epidemics in the 1830's and were still in place at the outbreak of the Civil War. So the Founding Fathers took a PROACTIVE stance towards the General Welfare of We the People and continued to fund and support it because it was vital to the interests of the nation as a whole. It was NOT a "side-bar" but instead treated as a PRIORITY. Just because it suits the political right to do a MODERN rewriting of history to PRETEND that the Founding Fathers did not care about the General Welfare of the nation is DISINGENUOUS. Epidemics caused PANIC and they existed well before the nation was founded. Each state dealt with as best they could individually but it was the Founding Fathers with the POWER of the Constitution that ENABLED then to deal with the General Welfare on a NATIONAL scale. In essence no amount of denial is going to make those facts documented in the Congressional Library disappear.
While I still dispute any notion that the founders of this nation envisioned setting up anything resembling 'cradle-to-grave' handout welfare systems, I will concede the point that they were justifiably alarmed at the prospect of epidemics and plagues, especially as it became more and more apparent that toxic, unhygienic situations produced more and more of them. But you say, "So the Founding Fathers took a PROACTIVE stance towards the General Welfare of We the People and continued to fund and support it because it was vital to the interests of the nation as a whole." Yes, Te... but only to a very limited point. If it was indeed a "priority" of overpowering importance then why didn't they set up a national healthcare system right then and there?! By the end of the Civil War, hospital care and nutrition for wounded solidiers was greatly improved and expanded -- especially in the North, but afterward did we see huge improvements in the healthcare of the ordinary civilian population? Indeed, it wasn't until after World War I that we saw meaningful improvements for all Americans, and even then we sustained the ravages of influenza, which killed 675,000 Americans in 1918! Whatever you imagine the Founding Fathers may have desired in the late 18th-century, it didn't begin to materialize on a meaningful scale until many years later, Te. Otherwise, we would have had some kind of universal healthcare system throughout the United States from the inception of the country.... Today? Yes, I do support the concept of American healthcare based on a Single-Payer system! I've written about that before, and I still think that is where we should go. It must be a customer-base made up of PAYING participants, who PAY to be a part of the system. All those who don't want to pay the associated premiums, or can't pay those costs must either get their own medical services privately or go on Medicaid (which we would have to keep for those who have no financial ability to provide for themselves).
While I have not done the math I suspect that when it comes to budgeted expenditures on the General Welfare what the Founding Fathers spent was probably a significant percentage of the funds they took in via taxation. Yes, we do need Single Payer and it must include contributions because that is essentially how it will work. Same applies to Social Security. Perhaps the single biggest problem that I have with anyone trying to use the Founding Fathers out of context is the simple fact that they were governing with different circumstances and priorities. If there were governing with the same circumstances and priorities as we have today I have no doubt whatsoever that they would be pragmatic and have enacted both Single Payer and Social Security because they truly understood what the General Welfare/Well-Being of the nation is all about both then and now.
And I will certainly agree that the men who founded this nation were surely the most 'enlightened' of their time, and that they only wanted what was best for their new country. You are quite right -- they had very different circumstances, including a prominent percentage of the new country reliant on slave labor, and a very constrained national financial situation (to say the least). You know me to be an unrepentant economic Conservative, Te, and one who is absolutely allergic to too much central government involvement in our private lives. But I would blind and negligent if I couldn't see that we do, NOW, in 2019, need some kind of national healthcare system -- based on a national customer-base of premium-paying participants. It should include all pharmaceutical medicine, and, dentistry also!
I know lots of musicians who brag about getting disability while lugging their equipment to gigs. If youvread the stats during Obama's term the numbers on disability exploded, now I don't think there were a lot more people getting injured in the job which is what disability was intended.
The Tax and Spend clause does say the general welfare of the People. "“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”" It concerns managing the federal government and paying for it's debts and maintence and cost to keep it in good operating order. It's about provideing direct subsistence to the People.
I agree with healthcare as common good as a conservative, but it has to be for american citizens, not illegals. Obamacare didn't do enough for the healthcare system.
No, Blues... the Constitution does not (NOT) say a single word about "provideing (sic) direct subsistence to the People". Does not even one of you libs understand anything about the English language as it was used in the 18th-century, when our Constitution was conceived and written? "WELFARE" MEANT "WELL-BEING"! It did not (NOT) entail anything like handouts from the government to those who did not work! Yes, 'welfare programs' do legally exist today -- they were begun during the regime of Frankie Roosevelt in the 1930's, and dramatically enlarged by Lyndon Johnson and his abysmal failure called the "War on Poverty". Fast-forward to 2009, when the Obama regime shoveled out many different kinds of welfare with reckless abandon -- including up to three YEARS of 'unemployment' money, and then, when that finally ran out, Democrat social workers would sign anybody up for Social Security "disability" who asked for it, without any REAL proof or regard for whether they were actually 'disabled' or not. Oh, and it was ALL perfectly legal! But it was never ANYTHING envisioned by the men who founded this country... a gigantic welfare 'smorgasbord' was the fartherest thing from their minds! "Welfare" as it is doled out today was a liberal Democrat Party invention of the 20th-century -- NOT authorized or described in the Constitution of the United States! One more time --
Sorry that was an autocorrect typo and an omission should have read The Tax and Spend clause doesn't say the general welfare of the People. It's not about providing direct subsistence to the People. "“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”" It concerns managing the federal government and paying for it's debts and maintence and cost to keep it in good operating order. you should know better.
With all the mass shootings taking place about every month or so, the argument by gun lovers for fewer regulations will be hard for most Americans to agree with. Having background checks to prevent those with a past record of violent behaviors is a safety check that most of us want in place. That doesn't really affect those with no criminal record who want to have & enjoy guns. Nor does it affect the 2nd Amendment. On religion, I wasn't aware there was a problem with freedom of religion in America. If you know of problems, please enlighten me.
1. We already have extensive background checks.. and the data shows gun laws prevent exactly 0 gun crime. Literally peoples thoughts and prayers do more than laws. 2. We have liberal states targeting Christian business owners.
1. Every American has an equal right to eat, sleep or shop wherever they wish to spend their money. Any business rejecting service to an American citizen for reasons of sex, race, religion, physical impairment, etc, is trespassing on the basic rights of that American. If a business refuses service due to religious beliefs, that business is imposing their beliefs over the head of their customers, & if the 1st Amendment means anything, it means everyone has the right to their personal beliefs, but NO ONE has the right to impose those beliefs over another American. The business owners would be wrong.
Not according to the supreme court you cannot force someone to do something something against their religion.
Even a large MAJORITY of gun owners support Universal Background Checks. Only a small subset of NRA members are objecting to sane and reasonable UBC regulations. https://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/
Strange how theists can't stop trying to impose their religious beliefs on our secular society and government.
So, Mormons believe men can & should have more than one wife. So, does that SCOTUS ruling protect their right to practice polygamy?
Yes, & generally speaking, I find it to be the fundamentalists & evangelicals who are the worst offenders. The more liberal churches &/or faiths are more open to individual choices.
Makes as much sense as same sex marriage. If we are going to allow same sex marriage i don't see how we can possibly interfere with any two people or groups of people from getting married.
