My fellow Americans, the Democrats claim that they have Constitutional authority for many of the things they do, including the recent healthcare overhaul. They always claim the same part of the Constitution when they institute these social programs, and it seems to be the only part of the Constitution that they are familiar with, although, some of their own are still clueless to this most-quoted-by-Democrats part. John Conyers, in fact, called it the “good and welfare clause.” But the supposed “welfare clause” in the Preamble of the Constitution has, like so much of the Constitution and our laws, been intentionally misunderstood by Democrats.
The Preamble reads, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.”
And that welfare clause that the Left cites for all their social workings is but a tiny fragment of that Preamble, “…promote the general welfare…”
Now, my fellow Americans, let us examine that, what the Democrats would call, all-encompassing clause of “social justice.”
This examination must start with the beginning of the actual sentence that this phrase occupies. And the beginning of that sentence is, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…” You catch that? It doesn’t say that it is the federal government’s prerogative, nor does this preamble in any way even speak of the government itself. The rest of the preamble talks about establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense… Now, some of these things are things our federal government oversees, but, in all cases, it is we the people who actually do them. The government oversees our court systems, but we are the voluntary jurors, the plaintiffs, and the defendants. The government oversees our military, but we the people are the voluntary soldiers, the generals, and the sergeants, aren’t we? The government exists to provide tranquility, but only does so because we the people voluntarily want it, and it is our voluntary tranquility that provides this republic its tranquility. Do you see where I am going with this?
But first, back to the phrase in the preamble we are dealing with right now.
The first word of the phrase… Is it construct, design, invent, or create? Is it define, agitate, entrench, or enthrall? No. The word is promote.
Promote: 1. To help or encourage to exist or flourish. 2. To aid in organizing. 3. To encourage the sale, acceptance, etc. of a product, especially through advertising or publicity. 4. (Informal) to obtain by cunning or trickery; wangle.
So, looking at these definitions, which one seems to be most likely, and how do ALL of these definitions compare to the Democrats’ accepted understanding of the first word of the phrase.
My fellow Americans, I believe it is important to note that the Constitution itself was written so that the federal government’s powers would be few and defined, while the powers of the states and the people would be numerous and indefinite. In fact, that is how many of our founders described the Constitution themselves. So the accepted definitions of words presented in the Constitution would have to be assumed to be the proper meanings of those words, unless the document itself says otherwise.
So promote… Promote, in this short clause, most likely means “To help or encourage to exist or flourish.” So it is the federal government’s job, then, to help or encourage something.
The next word to define, general: 1. common to most, prevalent, usual. 2. considering or dealing with overall characteristics, universal aspects, or important elements, esp. without considering all details or specific aspects. 3. not specific or definite.
Does this sound like something specific, like our Welfare program, Social Security, or Medicare or Medicaid, despite the definition of the word general? Of course not. They, the government, are supposed to help those who seek to improve general welfare, not perform, create, or invent a system to dispense welfare to specific individuals.
The last word is welfare. What does this word actually mean?
Welfare: 1. The good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child’s welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society. 3. Financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren’t for welfare. 4. (initial capital letter
) Informal. A governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.
So, given the rest of the phrase’s meaning, the terms promote and general, welfare means what it said in #1. The good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc of a person, group, or organization; well-being.
So, taken all together, what does this phrase from our preamble mean? Using the definitions of the word in the clause, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union… to help encourage the common and universal good fortune and prosperity… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
So, what of the Democrats’ translation (and I use that word accurately. Nothing ever comes through literally when you try to translate something from one thing into another)?
Well, think of it like this. When the federal government tries to establish a social program, are they doing it for all of us? Will Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, or Barack Obama himself ever have the use of one of these programs? Of course not. Will most of us in this Union ever use welfare for instance? No. Sure, there are some people in this republic that need it; the handicapped who cannot work, the victims of crimes and accidents who cannot work, etc. But those are specific cases. And charities are much better equipped to help those people than the federal government. For starters, charities don’t have to cut through all the bureaucratic garbage to get started.
And does the unwed mother, who chose to have sex when she was 16 or 17, and now at 23 has 4 kids, no husband, and no job… Does she DESERVE the rest of us footing her bills? By force? Because the force of coercion is the only thing the government has. Do we actually pay our taxes willingly, or do we pay them because if we don’t armed men will either force us to by taking our stuff, or put us in prison? Which is it? It is coercion. It is force.
And why must they use force, to take money from us, to do all these things that they do? Because there is no grounds for the programs in the first place. And if we were left alone long enough to figure out that out, they would have problems.
My fellow Americans, it is imperative that we read and understand our Constitution.
This supposed “welfare clause” is a full-on chunk of bologna, just like John Conyers’s “good and welfare clause”. For how long are we going to let these people continue to socialize this republic in ways that are difficult to reverse? It is an embarrassing and tragic end we are moving toward in this Union. We, the working class, the rich, and the ambitious, are forced to pay the way for the unambitious, for the lazy, for those who make poor choices and refuse to live up to their own responsibilities, because of the massive number of those people gaming the system, and the force of the government when it craves more taxation.
There is no welfare clause in our Constitution. There is only a general guideline that says our government should be looking out for us, all of us, not just the poor and the unambitious, who are quite often the same people. And by looking out for us, I don’t mean providing hand outs. I mean our federal government should be insulating those who are growing the economy of the United States, as much as they can, from those who are intent on destroying it for their own benefit.
But who, my fellow Americans, are those intent on harming our economy? This is the easiest question to provide an answer to. The ones constantly changing things, always looking for ways to help those less motivated, always looking for ways to tax those who are successful… The ones doing us harm are the Leftists in the government, not the people on welfare. It is the Left in our republic that makes the welfare recipient possible.
It is a lesson we have been learning for over a hundred years now. When do we quit learning, and start correcting? How much more will we let them take? How much more shall we let them control? How much more will we let them subvert our guiding principles, our guiding documents, our guiding laws… Before we decide we have had enough?
You and I both know that they will never take enough. Never. So when will we have lost enough? The reason they are doing this is clear. Only by tearing down our system, destroying our economy, and making us all dependent on the government, can the Left ever establish full control, and have the power to mete out what they see fit to all. Will we wait to say no until then? Will we wait until it is too late to do anything, after they have taken our guns, begun tracking our every movement, and established themselves as our rulers?
Let me reiterate the entire preamble for you:
We the People (the people, not the government) of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice (not social justice, which is what the Democrats call redistribution of wealth), insure domestic Tranquility (which includes keeping the people happy with the goings on in DC), provide for the common defense , promote the general Welfare (which means to help encourage the common and universal good fortune and prosperity, not the specific misfortunes of those who make mistakes or are helpless), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (yet right now we are taxing our posterity through record deficits and spending ourselves into a record debt), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The preamble, a bold and valiant statement on its own, needs to be understood for what it is, not what it could be. No longer can we allow the spin doctors to make our Constitution say what they want it to say. We must go by its definitions. We must go by its character. We must adhere to its principles. And those principles are the preservation of liberty, the ability to earn what you can, and the right to keep it. Nowhere in this document is there a right to take someone else’s, a right to receive what your neighbor has. Nowhere is there the responsibility of the federal government to give a ham to those who are hungry, but instead, it says to protect he who would go out and EARN a ham. The federal government is not supposed to hand out home loans and property to those who are poor, but to protect their rights to EARN a home if they are responsible enough to do so. The federal government has no authority to take from the rich and the modestly stable and give to the poor, but instead to make sure the rich and the modestly stable, and the poor person as well, has the opportunity to EARN their own keep, whether or not they choose to do just that.
Any contradictory “interpretation” of the preamble, or any other part of the Constitution, means that the person interpreting it has a different agenda than the principles, the human dignity, represented in the document itself, which is as close to a perfect code of principles and rights and responsibilities as man has ever come up with on his own. Read it for what it says, not what it can say. Our republic, the United States of America, depends on understanding our Constitution and enforcing it.
God bless you my reader, and God bless America.