This post is a continuation of my recent, 3-part commentary to the blog referenced in my previous post:
As one blogger recently asserted , "No two words [reference to “General Welfare” in the U.S. Constitution] have taken greater abuse in our country, and it has become a ticket for federal politicians to exceed the limits placed upon them by the very Constitution [in which] these words are found."
Now, mind you, I am not advocating the ostensibly, partisan view of the foregoing blog, because I am opposed to "we versus them" partisanship and opt for a more holistic and "humane" politics that synthesizes the wisdom inherent in human beings and that so often gets expressed in fragmented, divisive fashion. Thus, I would encourage educational programs that facilitate our children's integrated use of mental and emotional capabilities and sensitivities, devoid of implicit, and often unrecognized, political agendas. To seek to gain political power as a way of bringing about a change in undesirable social conditions, is to unleash "King Kong," the "Federal Enforcer," whose limbs are the IRS and other coercive, federal agencies. To turn this bureaucratic monster loose to force people to "do the right thing," even if this coercion violates the Constitution and infringes the personal freedom of others, is to support the "compassion through coercion" idea (which you rightly reject) on a massive, federal scale [The last two links do not appear in the original post].
The author of the foregoing blog goes on to say:
"The federal government, especially the Democrats, have been successful in redefining welfare over the last 60 years. They have discovered welfare is a vote machine that encourages minorities to stay down on their luck in exchange for a vote. I ask what have the Democrats really done for blacks in this country other than encourage them not to lift themselves out of their tragic conditions that welfare created. Do you really believe this is what our proud founding fathers believed the general welfare of the people should be—crumbling housing projects in bad neighborhoods with bad schools incapable of lifting most out of the conditions they face? There’s no welfare in that.
"I had to endure Senator Claire McCaskill tell a group at a town hall meeting in September, that she believed the general welfare clause gave her the right to provide welfare to the people. She’s another politician obviously brainwashed by the Democratic party over the last 60 years with no real knowledge of what the founding fathers meant by general welfare.
[Link to the foregoing .pdf document and the following commentary do not appear in the original post; see especially, pp. 54-55, viz., “The current Supreme Court interpretation, the Hamilton-Story view, stands the original meaning of the General Welfare Clause on its head. The Clause was not a qualified grant of spending authority as Hamilton and Story claimed. Nor did it merely point to other powers, as Story understood Madison to have said. On the contrary, the General Welfare Clause was an unqualified denial of spending authority. It did not add to federal powers; it subtracted from them.”]
"General welfare doesn’t mean make the people dependent on a government. That creates oppression....If the idea of the Constitution is to limit government and keep the government from being intrusive into a citizen’s life, which is one of the earliest facts you learn about the Constitution, how to [sic, "do"] politicians like McCaskill with any honestly believe the general welfare clause provides enough elasticity to rob freedom of the people by providing federal babysitting services.
"You can’t simply have a government program for every pain Americans face from healthcare costs to food safety without giving the federal government power beyond the limits placed in the Constitution. Our founding fathers were smart enough to look across the pond and realize with power comes corruption and oppression."
I think that we need to listen when individuals speak out, especially when they passionately take positions opposite to our own passions. I don't support the use of ad hominems to attack the opposing side, but I think that we need to work toward educating children to assess situations with their whole minds and not with fragments of them created by the inculcated belief systems of their parents, teachers, or religious leaders. Education must be politically neutral or it is not education, only brainwashing. A respect for reasoning and intuitive sensitivity must predominate in any process of nurturing young people. Otherwise, they will never be able truly to think for themselves in a critical and sensitive manner.
(To be continued in the next post)
No comments:
Post a Comment