Thomas Jefferson on the "general welfare" clause...

[ALPHA.]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

[1713517467]

1713517467

[1713517467]

1713517467

[1713517467]

1713517467

[1713517467]

1713517467

[cbeast]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Gee thanks for the history lesson. Why then do you think this was written. We already know why you don't think it was written. Maybe you think it was written so Martians won't come here to eat our gubbermint cheese?

[Hawker]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. 

[ALPHA.]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. 

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

[Hawker]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. 

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare.  No contradiction there.

[ALPHA.]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. 

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare.  No contradiction there.

They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution.

[Hawker]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. 

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare.  No contradiction there.

They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution.

You should read up on Hamilton and Washington.  They went a lot further from day 1.

[ALPHA.]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many.  

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare.  No contradiction there.

They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution.

You should read up on Hamilton and Washington.  They went a lot further from day 1.

Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks.

[Hawker]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many.  

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare.  No contradiction there.

They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution.

You should read up on Hamilton and Washington.  They went a lot further from day 1.

Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks.

And there we have it.  He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson.  It seems that they were not consistent after all were they? 

[ALPHA.]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many.  

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare.  No contradiction there.

They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution.

You should read up on Hamilton and Washington.  They went a lot further from day 1.

Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks.

And there we have it.  He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson.  It seems that they were not consistent after all were they?  

Most of them didn't like him:

He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

He got killed in a duel for a reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel

This nation was not founded on the philosophy of the Federalists like Hamilton.

[Hawker]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many.  

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare.  No contradiction there.

They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution.

You should read up on Hamilton and Washington.  They went a lot further from day 1.

Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks.

And there we have it.  He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson.  It seems that they were not consistent after all were they?  

Most of them didn't like him:

He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

He got killed in a duel for a reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel

This nation was not founded on the philosophy of the Federalists like Hamilton.

Actually it was.  He served under Washington and helped Jefferson get elected.  All three maintained a national debt and a national bank and used implied powers to run the country.  Your problem is that you want to cherrypick your facts.

[ALPHA.]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many.  

The opinion among the founding fathers was consistent. In the end, there can only be one perspective. Compromise leads to tyranny.

And the founding fathers raised taxes for the general welfare.  No contradiction there.

They raised taxes to support only limited infrastructure and services allotted specifically in the constitution.

You should read up on Hamilton and Washington.  They went a lot further from day 1.

Hamilton was evil and far from a true American. He was tied directly to the foreign central banks.

And there we have it.  He was a founding father as were Washington and Jefferson.  It seems that they were not consistent after all were they?  

Most of them didn't like him:

He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

He got killed in a duel for a reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Hamilton_duel

This nation was not founded on the philosophy of the Federalists like Hamilton.

Actually it was.  He served under Washington and helped Jefferson get elected.  All three maintained a national debt and a national bank and used implied powers to run the country.  Your problem is that you want to cherrypick your facts.

No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited.

"Opinions of Hamilton have run the gamut: both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson viewed him as unprincipled and dangerously aristocratic. Aaron Burr and Hamilton became personal enemies."

[Hawker]

...snip...

No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited.

They opposed it in opposition.  Once elected, they supported it.  You are confusing the cut and thrust of electoral politics with the principles that guide people's actions after they are elected.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...

No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited.

They opposed it in opposition.  Once elected, they supported it.

Prove this.

Also, can we really hold this man as a genuine founding father?

"Early in the Convention he made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected President and elected Senators  who would serve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison."

[Hawker]

...snip...

No, the other founding father's found no allotment for a national bank in the constitution. The power is not strictly listed. The constitution was written to explicitly give the federal government certain powers; they are enumerated. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were opposed to a central bank. In fact, Jefferson found nothing of it in his strict study of the constitution. Again, the powers that are given are not broad nor implied but very strictly limited.

They opposed it in opposition.  Once elected, they supported it.

Prove this.

Also, can we really hold this man as a genuine founding father?

"Early in the Convention he made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected President and elected Senators  who would serve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison."

Read up on Jefferson and Madison in office.  Both carried on with national banks. 

Its not really up to you to decide who is and is not a founding father.  There is a list - he is on it.  Some of his ideas were good and some were not.  You of all people should appreciate that is true of all of us.

[deslok]

Atlas how is it that you can support the founding fathers(who created the system that evolved into what we have today) with such fervor in one moment, and in another claim that the only proper system is a total anarchy, you cannot have both systems co-exist.

[MoonShadow]

Atlas how is it that you can support the founding fathers(who created the system that evolved into what we have today) with such fervor in one moment, and in another claim that the only proper system is a total anarchy, you cannot have both systems co-exist.

Because the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[barbarousrelic]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

So, no, it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

http://www.dailypaul.com/103339/thomas-jefferson-clarifies-to-provide-for-thegeneral-welfare

Um, Jefferson was 1 author among many and his opinion is 1 opinion among many. 

Very true! Here's another opinion, from James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."