The Ball-less Buffoons Of Bad and Badder Bargains.”

[Robo]

Unfortunately, the words of Jefferson are not the end all/do all and are merely his opinion. As are the words of the other Founding Fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, who interpreted the Preamble in a completely different manner. (Again, this underscores the fact that the Constitution is a living document, subject to change.)

Actually, Jefferson simply gave correct definition to the general welfare clause and of course there is no actual truthful argument to the fact that if the general welfare clause is the open invitation to Congress and Presidents to do whatever they want in the name of the general welfare, then you have no plausible answer to the questions, “what can’t the government do in the name of the general welfare?” & “Of what value is the Constitution when a single clause in it makes the rest of it irrelevant? I’ll look forward to your attempts at answering those questions.

Of course the Constitution is “subject to change.” As a matter of fact it’s the law that the Constitution must be changed before the federal government can do anything that’s not authorized by the Constitution it must be changed to authorize whatever else the feds want to do. There’s a process in the Constitution called the AMENDMENT PROCESS. I’d still like to see you produce the constitutional amendment that authorizes the federal socialist programs. Could you produce that please?

The SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. Since nearly the beginning of the nation's history, they have historically sided with Hamilton's vision of the scope of general welfare.



In another day, in another world, the words of Jefferson might prevail. Not in this world...

Just about anybody with half a brain can interpret the Constitution. It doesn’t take a Supreme Court Judge to do that. Actually, the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the written law that comes out of the government’s politicians with its linguistic gymnastics designed to end run the Constitution, to determine if the legislated law meets constitutional muster. Sadly, the Courts are stacked with political ideologues from the right and left who were appointed and confirmed by political ideologues. Thus there’s little to no loyalty to the Constitution on the Courts, the loyalty is directed at confirming political ideological biases.