No Government, No Force

Does the Constitution REALLY Authorize Welfare?

What with the Obama Administration’s frantic push for socialized medicine, a lot of people have come up with some unique ideas to justify its passage.  One unique idea that strikes me is the old canard:  The federal government is responsible for the “General Welfare” of its citizens, and having the government provide for the health care is in keeping with that responsibility.

I am in perfect harmony with our Constitution, and, yes, it does charge the federal government to insure its citizens “General Welfare”.    BUT…..


I searched for ‘General Welfare’, and here are the results of that search:

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

NOTE: (according to the Constitutional Dictionary)
Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is NOT the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

I think people do not understand much about our government because our politicians have denigrated and misused words and meanings so often and so vocally that they have created a populace that is totally confused.  The sad part is that, in many cases, the politicians’ misuse of words is NOT deliberate, and this leads me to believe we elect some very, very dumb people to represent us and write laws for us, all of which deny us liberties we would otherwise be enjoying.  Please do not misunderstand when I say dumb.  I am not referring to education – I am referring mostly to character and sincerity which will lead anyone running for public office to learn the Constitution backwards and forwards.

share save 120 16 Does the Constitution REALLY Authorize Welfare?
Share © 2017 Sharing and Reposting are welcome; we expect due credit to Author and Frontier Theme