Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Promoting the general welfare is literally discussed in the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights came later.


sort by: page size:

“Promote the general Welfare” comes immediately after “provide for the common defense” in literally the first sentence of the constitution.

I believe it's in the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Keeping its citizens safe would likely fall under general welfare.


That’s contrary to what the authors of the constitution have meant when they wrote it. See my other comment. Roughly speaking, if the “general welfare” was supposed to mean “anything the congress wants to do to provide for general welfare”, there would be absolutely no point in enumerating the powers it does have. Madison was extremely clear about that, and this is how this article was universally understood (otherwise, the constitution would have had no snowball chance in hell of passing) up until Helvering v. Davis, when it was promptly thrown away and replaced with the opposite of original intention.

What? The Constitution gives the government the right to legislate to promote the general welfare?

So they could compel people, with the treat of prison time, to exercise and eat healthy?


The US Constitution grants states the right to enact laws that protect the general welfare

The writers of the constitution have explicitly said in the Federalist papers that the "general welfare" phrase is not meant to imply anything beyond the enumerated powers listed afterwards. That the courts interpret it the way you say they do is just an example how the Constitution became just a parchment which is taken to mean whatever is convenient at any particular moment.


The Bill of Rights covers the US Government.

"General welfare" appears in the preamble. The preamble does not grant any powers at all.

Congress is only granted powers in Article I. Redistributing wealth (like Social Security) is not one of those powers.


The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

Indeed! But that's where Constitutional protections come in, and why the Bill of Rights was added.

Bill of rights has a something similar.

The constitution / bill of rights is one fairly successful example of that.

Not exactly. The Bill of Rights was added later to explicitly identify a number of the most important rights of the people. These were originally implied; everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right of the people.

Was the US the first nation with a Bill of Rights, though? (I'm aware there are many medieval documents that could be construed as such, but I'm talking about universal rights in the modern sense).

Authoritarians for decades have attempting to expand "general welfare" far beyond its original remit

In Federalist 41,Madison clearly states that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means.

In short it is about the General Welfare *of the United States* on the whole, to provide means for Congress to have revenue to enforce and discharge the powers granted therein.

It is NOT.. I repeat NOT a general statement of power to provide all individuals all people "general welfare" like people attempt to conflate it to mean in modern day and as your comment asserts.


If the intent of the Constitution was to enumerate the rights granted by the citizens to its government and keep those limited, then there should have been a bit more careful wording in "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" since that can be interpreted to mean just about anything...

I already address the wrong interpretation of General Welfare here [1] it is a common tactic by Authoritarians to expand the scope of the federal government to be unlimited, when clearly the purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, If your understanding of that clause is correct then there is no reason to go on and list other powers as literally everything is included in "General Welfare" and the US Federal Governments power is unlimited. That is not the case

>>"General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase.

Ahh your a living document believer, that we should reinterpret the constitution under the lens of how words are used in common usage today, not the original intent of the provisions. I am an orginalist so no I do not agree that General Welfare powers expand as humanities standards increase

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213


Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following:

"The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"

Seems to strongly indicate that clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare".


Yeah, see Bill of Rights.

The US Constitution is about guaranteeing rights using laws.
next

Legal | privacy