Originally Posted by danielpalos

Paying the Debts and providing for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States are the scope of the general powers. It means, that public monies should not be spent on the general Badfare, the common Offense, or the general Warfare; as is current practice by subscribers to the republican doctrine and where any good fallacy will work for the common Offense and general Warfare, not to mention the general Badfare.

The powers listed after the general powers are specific examples and qualifications of what was meant by the common defense and general welfare (as the scope and basis for authority of the specific powers.)







This explains why our Founding Fathers didn't simply provide a list of specifically enumerated specific powers without the general qualifiers on what constitutes the common defense and general welfare. "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."

Because, not everything qualifies as the common defense and general welfare.

As long as it is for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States as specifically enumerated by that general power; it can be considered within the scope of the powers delegated to our federal Congress.

The explanations and qualifications after the general powers are what constitutes specific examples what was meant by the common defense and general welfare.



In other words, anything that does not promote the general welfare is beyond the scope of the authority of those general powers delegated to our federal Congress. It can be considered a form of States' right.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Anything that does not promote the common defense and general welfare is beyond the scope of the authority of those general powers delegated to our federal Congress.

It can be considered a form of States' right to deny and disparage the general government of the Union, in any extra-constitutional powers not specifically delegated to it.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

All of the specifically enumerated general powers are specifically enumerated before the specifically enumerated specific powers, since nothing is more natural than specifying from the general to the specific.

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Once you recognize that poverty as an individual phenomena is a result of personal choices; that our society actually does readily provide everyone with an almost absolute opportunity to be free of poverty, poverty is not a problem to be solved by society.

The notion that it is a "problem" to be "solved" by society presumes one of two things, either there is a moral right on the part of the poor and a moral obligation on the part of the better off to provide for the poor merely because they are poor, regardless of whether it is the result of circumstances outside the influence and control of the person or not (the rare exceptional case). Or, you are making the assumption that one person being poor creates harm to others, the only way to ameliorate those harms is to make the person not poor.

Now, if poverty is by and large the result of the choices made by the poor, how do you "solve" it in a free society without the moral hazzard of punishing people who make the right choices to subsidize the poor choices of those who don't?

Also, the notion of "solving" the "problem" of poverty confuses the symptom with the sickness. Poverty is the resulting symptom of the sickness of poor life choices. Cures, or "solutions", that address the symptom of poverty is like using pain killers to "cure" illness. It doesn't actually fix the underlying problem, it merely hides the symptoms for a time, often with long-term detriment and sideeffects. A more immediate example would be dulling the senses of someone who keeps putting their hand on a stove burner...is the "problem" to be "solved" the pain resultig from putting their hand on the burner, or is it the fact that they keep putting their hand on the burner?