Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

It appears that ol’ Madison should’ve paid more attention to the likes of frameone who advocates additional rights under the guise of “general welfare.” Madison continues:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

In other words…you conveniently left off the list that followed your “general welfare” quote from the Constitution. It was there for a reason.

How about this part:

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 8 – Powers of Congress

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

Ya, and I missed the part where it made pre-emptive war to “liberate” other countries a national priority. Get rid of all the programs that you think the government shouldn’t be providingand we’ll see in which direction the “general welfare” heads. And it’s called the “general” welfare because we are a national community, JWG, we are in this together.

And as to this:

“What about the right to a college/vocational education? How about transportation? Internet access? Vacations?”

You don’t think universal college and vocational training would help provide for the common welfare? You got a problem with buses and subways and other forms of public transportation? You don’t think that in the 21st century libraries should provide free internet access? And finally, you got a problem with weekends? Ya, weekends, the two days of the week we get to “rest” because unions in this country fought for the right for a 40 hour, five day work week. And why the hell shouldn’t the average American worker be entitled by law to two weeks vacation time every year? Hell, the French get six. You want to run on a platform of doing away with buses and subways and the 40 hour work week? Go for it.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011106.html

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

? Conservative politicians and commentators pounced on this, choosing to interpret this as Durbin calling American troops Nazis.

And also recall that even though Bush himself has repeatedly explained that he never said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that there is no evidence that he ever aided Al Qaida, that because of the administration’s incessant conflation of Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath leading up to Bush’s launching the Iraq war, that polls at the time showed that 45% of American’s believed the administration’s intentionally created false impression that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

So it’s hard to believe that Bush’s newest comparison of the federal government to terrorists is entirely innocent here.

[...]

could you please tell me how you apply it to the isse of illegal immigration

I must’ve missed the part where the DoI advocated breaking the law in your pursuit of happiness.

I d love to know which category you think the food stamp program falls into. Also Head Start, unemployment insurance, Social Security, medicare, the prescription drug program and welfare.

Obviously, they fall into “providing.” I’m curious where the Constitution outlines the rights of certain American citizens to have their food, education, medical care, periods of unemployment, and retirement forcefully funded by other citizens?
What other “rights” should we force our citizens to pay for? You mentioned the right to housing before. What about the right to a college/vocational education? How about transportation? Internet access? Vacations?

Not surprising. Self-deception has been at the heart of Bush’s support from the beginning.

I’d love to know which category you think the food stamp program falls into.

Also Head Start, unemployment insurance, Social Security, medicare, the prescription drug program and welfare.

Oh and if you want to employ such an expansive view of the Declaration of Independence to support the invasion of Iraq, could you please tell me how you apply it to the isse of illegal immigration.

Face it guys and gals, you elected an idiot.

I prefer “folksy.”

Anyone who criticizes our government is a Commie.

You caught Oliver’s disease. I clearly made a sarcastic point which had nothing to do with those “who criticize our government.” If anyone was criticizing the government it was me (for adding never-ending financial responsibilities specifically left out of the Constitution).
The USSR supressed individual responsibility, primarily expressed within religious faiths, in favor of increased governmental responsibility for caring for its citizens. Do I really think the Left wants us to become a communist state? No, but what’s the point of reading a political blog if you can’t make a sarcastic comment once in a while?

your post above in which you imply that the government should not be involved in preventing hunger and homelessness or access to health care?

Um, I didn’t imply anything of the kind. The government has a duty to “promote” activity that helps its citizens’ welfare. My point is that is not the same as “provide” the welfare. Additionally, the goverment is already doing waaaay more than just helping people not to starve or die from medical emergencies, and you want it to take responsibility for even more.

Um, okay. So our Constitution ensures the freedom of Iraqi citizens?

Wow, your eyes must be tired today. I clearly said the use of our military resources in Iraq was debatable. That’s a long way from “ensures.” If we do choose to employ our military then it remains a governmental responsibility. In other words, the responsibility to engage foreign governments in combat belongs to the American government.
However, philosophically, you may choose to debate our responsibilities to the world if you believe in the statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

While not legally binding as is the Constitution, the statement does imply that everyone, not just Americans, has a right to freedom.

Do I seek the minimization of religious expression?

I hang on your every word …

Just sayin’.

we are under no obligation to provide basic sustenance, housing and health care to Americans in need?

1) Please point to where all these poor Americans are dying of starvation, can’t find shelter if they want it, and are turned away from the emergency rooms.
2) Providing citizens with the military might to ensure freedom is a responsibility of government…choosing to use that might for other nations is debatable, but remains a responsibility of the government. It’s all there in the Constitution.