I think another problem of our more recent government, especially after FDR,, is its tactic of the re-definition of words used in the Constitution.
"Equal" being the most raped..
"Equal" now meaning being "Made" equal,, instead of being "Created" equal.. In other words being made "Equal" through re-distribution of wealth.
I believe the Constitution meant "Equal" meaning be No man has superiority over another..
I also think the total new interpretation of the "General welfare" clause of the Constitution, has bought our country to its kness,, and is the Main Cause of our problems today..
I very much agree with the following.
"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."
I am quite certain that the founding fathers never realized how much some of those words recorded in the preamble to the constitution and in the introduction to section 8 would alter the way Washington does business, nor would they approve.
Up until about 1937 congress limited its business to the 17 enumerated powers outlined in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. But starting with FDR in 1937 and continuing on to this day Liberals have sought to use the "general welfare clause", to justify all manner of interference in our lives and Liberty, at least in their minds "for our own good".
Below, in a 1791 letter to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, who should know something about the original framers thoughts lays out for Washington his ideas of the purpose of the general welfare clause. The italics are Mr. Jefferson's:
To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, to lay taxes of providing for the general welfare. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, 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.So in other words, the line of thinking that the Congress can use the general welfare clause to justify anything Congress thinks is "for the general welfare" is absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional. Congress may lay taxes to provide for the general welfare but only within the defined and limited powers outline in the rest of the constitution.
Today Congress thinks it is best for the general welfare to force us all to buy health insurance. Maybe tomorrow it will be to limit each family to one child, or take away personal property rights. And if the general welfare clause was meant to give Congress such unlimited power, how are we to know when the general welfare clause trumps the defined powers outlined in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states quite clearly: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", no where does it add "unless it is a power the Congress thinks is for the "general welfare".
Why bother outlining the Right of Free Speech if the general welfare clause gives Congress the power to cancel free speech -- if deemed necessary to "provide for the general welfare"?
Why bother to define the Freedom of the Press if Congress can decide that restricting a free press is "for the general welfare"? Throughout history, dictators have used power to control populations all the while saying it was for the public good or general welfare.
If the general welfare clause was meant to give Congress the power to do whatever Congress thinks is best for the general welfare, the Founding Fathers wasted a great deal of precious time in the summer of 1787 listing out definite limits to the federal government's power.
They could have just written the general welfare clause and gone home.
When elected officials deliberatly Mis interprete the constitution and use that interpretation to go against what the Constitutions Soul is,,, and dis regard thier Oath of office,, again,, I feel they should be held accountable.. By the very least,, they should neve be re-elected they should absolutly be thrown out of office..
It is our duty as Americans to see that this is done..