I am not sure I follow.

Roads for the wealthy only?

Coin money for the wealthy only?

Uniform rule of Naturalization for the wealthy only?

There is what I believe to be an important distinction that is being missed here - and this is even before I go into my detail later. The wording is -

"provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare....".

There is a tremendous difference between providing for and promoting, particularly in terms of financial backing.

But first you have to agree on what constitutes "the general welfare."

Once you three have agreed on that you can then move on how best to provide and promote for it.

It seems obvious to me the usage of the word "promote" was stylistic (to avoid redundancy). From Encarta, "promote" and its antonyms:
Now, what can a government possibly do to "promote" general welfare -- disseminate motivational posters?

Unless the founding fathers were genuinely concerned enough about being perceived by the citizenry of demoting, suppressing, defaming, preventing or otherwise not being in favor of general welfare, and, as such, felt the need to declare that they were totally behind it, dude, hence the use of the word "promote."

Nice try at obfuscation sleepyjeff, but more specifically, I meant these:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.

To regulate Commerce among the several States.

To establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (emphasis added.)

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. (emphasis added.)



Promote the general welfare?


Fail.

Matter of opinion, certainly.

The general welfare clause....

Here's the problem. Madison (in Federalist 41) and Hamilton (in Federalist 30) disagree on the meaning of this phrase.

Madison says in Federalist 41 that this (the general welfare clause) fell in line with the same phrase in Article I, section 8, which is immediately followed by an enumeration of powers.

The general welfare clause is "explained and qualified" by the "enumeration of particulars." I happen to agree with this, as the Consitution is specifically NOT an enumeration of powers granted to the people, but a limitation on the powers of government.

Hamilton, however, in Federalist 30, says

Or to summarize, as we can't possibily know all that will happen, why restrict what the government is allowed to spend tax money on?

I think it is important to note, however, that this was far prior to the 16th amendment (income tax) and the tax revenues were from land owners and tarriffs only, and in the same vein the Hamilton said it was impossible to predict future contingencies, they had no way to predict that income would be nor how the taxes would be spent. It is also important to note that Jefferson agreed with the Madison view. Madison was far more outspoken and wrote much more on the subject than did Hamilton (i'll spare you the numerous and lengthy quotes from Madison).

So while there was no general consensus among the founders, it is evident that most agreed with Madison (I can list more than Jefferson if anyone really wants me to). I prefer the Madisonian interpretation, but congress has gone with the Hamiltonian for quite some time (no brainer for them - they get to then use the money for political ends). Even with that being said, I thin Hamilton would be turning in his grave to see what has been spent in the name of the general welfare clause.

It might come as no surprise to scaeagles then that I agree with the Hamiltonian interpretation.


Ya know, when there are different interpretations of American law or bedrock philosophies that have to be applied to all the American people, I try to come down on which interpretation is the the most "American" ... and I wish more people would attempt to do that with things that effect everyone in America.

If Hamilton's opinion is that in the Constitution there "ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies,as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible to safely limit that capacity," ... I find that simply more American in nature than the limited interpretation of enummerated items clearly rooted and frankly mudstuck in the 18th Century.

When there are two reasonably valid interpreations, why focus on the unanswerable question of which is "right?" Why not instead focus on determining which interpretation confers the most benefit on We the People who have established the Constitution?



I hate to go all Godwin ... but this is the big problem I have with Right-to-Lifers. Whether you believe life starts at conception or at birth or somewhere in between, how hard is it to look around and see that at least half the people in America don't agree with you? The "right" answer for all Americans can never be arrived at, even thouth it's simple to arrive at your own "right" answer. The American thing is to err on the side of freedoms and liberties. The American thing is to acknowledge the pluralism of our society and allow for other viewpoints.



In any event, it's likely too much to ask most Americans to come down on what's more American on these unanswerable questions ... but I do hold our lawmakers and judges to that standard when unanswerable questions must nonetheless be decided.

How large of a majority do you need before "err on the side of freedoms and liberties" is trumped by majority rule?

Isn't that the essence of Libertarianism -- you do your thing and I'll do mine? Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins?

You do realize you just said "let's agree to disagree and do it my way"?

On most topics I'm in full agreement with "most liberty side wins" but in the case of abortion the fundamental question at issue is who involved has rights and liberties to be protected and balanced.