- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I agree that there needs to be a national debate--with our fearless leaders listening--as to what constitutes the national defense. And we should be rethinking about those things that qualify for that; however, if our presence someplace is an honest to goodness deterrent against armed conflict, that should be a consideration.
So far that has not been the case according to the Generals on the ground. We have not diminished al Qaeda's capabilities after 8 years of war.
But if you include affordable healthcare as appropriate for the general welfare, why not affordable housing, affordable food, affordable transportation, affordable clothing/heating/cooling all of which are more critical to life than is most healthcare?
The constitution was written to give WE THE PEOPLE the ability to determine what is in the General Welfare. That is how we implemented Social Security and Medicare. To date, we have not deemed the other things you mention to be included under that provision.
The Founders definition of the general welfare was that which benefitted all of society equally from the poorest to the richest. The Founders, to a man, believed it dishonest to confiscate one person's property who legally acquired it and give it to somebody else who had not earned it. The right to one's own labor, property, and self determination, so long as the rights of others were not infringed, was the pure definition of what they meant by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No where in the document is there a definition for General Welfare. The Founders specifically did not define General Welfare because they meant it to be a living document.