But what was the meaning when the preamble of the US constitution was written 220 years ago? That definition could grant insight into the Federalists' intent.

Surely it can't have meant a free-for-all! Seriously, I don't honestly know the meaning as applied to the US Constitution.

I'm a little out of my depth here because I can only comment from a UK perspective (and some in UK would disagree with me also). US 'welfare' is very different from ours in the UK from healthcare (probably the most obvious), but also housing, education, pensions, unemployment entitlements, the list goes on.

Dave

 

Surely it can't have meant a free-for-all!

From what I've read, it just might have been. Recall if you will, our First Amendment is "speak your mind" and our Second is "fill your hand."

 

From what I've read, it just might have been. Recall if you will, our First Amendment is "speak your mind" and our Second is "fill your hand."

I always thought the Second Amendment was the one about gun-ownership?

Seems strange that concept of welfare as we know it today could have been conceived all that time ago. I doubt the forefathers of the British welfare-state, which only came into being after the second world war, could have predicted it becoming what it became. Some people have taken the "cradle-to-grave" ideology of the welfare-state just a little too far.

Dave

 

I always thought the Second Amendment was the one about gun-ownership?

My apology for using English instead of English. "Fill your hand" is from Hollywood "Cowboy" movies. It means "arm yourself."

I may also have misread your own words... By "free-for-all" did you mean "donnybrook?"

 

"Make your move, Pilgrim" - John Wayne.

Wasn't it G. B. Shaw who said "Two great peoples, separated by a common language"?

 

But what was the meaning when the preamble of the US constitution was written 220 years ago? That definition could grant insight into the Federalists' intent.

I think that the contention that the phrase "Promote the general welfare of the United States" does not apply to social programs that help people work their way out of poverty or help handicapped people sets a very dangerous precedent. Basically we are saying that any government aid or incentive that does not directly aid the whole United States is unconstitutional. This dangerous statement could lead to declaring tax incentives targeting segments of our economy unconstitutional.

People on social programs spend their money buying necessities. This indirectly aids our economy.

 

My apology for using US English instead of British English. "Fill your hand" is from Hollywood "Cowboy" movies. It means "arm yourself."

I needed to make the above corrections to your statement!

I may also have misread your own words... By "free-for-all" did you mean "donnybrook?"

I think Bill has nailed it:

Wasn't it G. B. Shaw who said "Two great peoples, separated by a common language"?

It was also uttered by the great Winston Churchill.

Dave

 

Then I probably misquoted the statement - but it's still true.