Light Rain and Breezy ~ 33°F   Winter Weather Advisory
Login | Register
Thursday, January 19, 2017

Promote The General Welfare Revisited

Posted Sunday, November 13, 2011, at 6:51 AM

I'm doing  something I don't think I've done before. I'm reposting a blog from awhile back. There are several new people posting comments now, and I'm curious about their feeling on the subject. I would also like to know if the opinion of any of the regulars have changed since my Inconvenient Truth blog. Below you will find word for word the original blog. First and foremost I would like the comments to be addressed from the moral aspect. If anyone wants to interject politics, please include your moral aspect.


These four very simple words strung together have caused much consternation over the last century or more. This phrase is used twice in the Constitution. The first time is in the preamble and that is what I will try to address here. While the founding fathers were very wise, they couldn't possibly foresee the future as it exists today. I do believe that their intent was to produce a document that would guide a young nation. They saw the result of the Puritan experiment, therefore the 1st amendment. Therefore also my opposition to any group of people who would seek to impose on the nation their particular religious views, but I digress. The concept of the social aspect of the general welfare was accepted by the Supreme Court by validating Social Security, our government's first excursion into social welfare. Since then both ends of the political spectrum have tried to achieve their vision of promoting the general welfare and at the end of the day, both sides have been dismal failures. One side has promoted self sufficiency, faith based aid and has systematically tried to eliminate basic safety nets, while the other side has promoted cradle to grave care.

Both sides are wrong and there has to be an answer somewhere in the middle. The concept of community based safety nets were perverted by the greed of some of those who provided the safety net. The concept of government based safety nets has been perverted by the greed of some of those who benefit from the safety nets and have made them a way of life. I'm sure that the founding fathers would have no problem with basic safety nets for the citizens of this country. Food, Shelter and Medical Care. I added Medical care as it has become so expensive and expansive that it completely out of reach for so many.

That being said, I think the founding fathers would have no problems with attaching certain strings on said aid, i.e. where and how it is spent. What sort of giving back to the community should be required for those who can give back with their labor or skills.

I hope everyone noticed I said the CITIZENS of this country. Now before anyone accuses me of being an uncaring ogre because of the children of illegal immigrants would go hungry or lack shelter or medical care because of the sins of their parents, that isn't what I'm proposing. The Medical care part is easy since it is person specific. The question is how to feed and provide shelter to the children without benefiting the parents. It is vexing, and I for one have no reasonable answer. The one answer that has been put forward is to simply deport them all. Children born on U.S. soil are citizens. Until the Supreme Court reverses itself that is the law of the land. So if we deport the parents, what of the children left behind? Like it or not, they are citizens.

I believe this conveys my feelings from a moral aspect as well as from a political aspect.

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I believe that parenthood in this case should over ride automatic citizenship. The parents to which you speak came here illegally and therefore have no citizenship rights. This in my opinion should carry on to the children who are born of those people here illegally.

When caught, these families should be deported immediately. Moral or not that is what needs to be done. If this was the case more people would likely stay put in their country and not come here illegally for fear of being caught, deported, and Perhaps jailed for breaking the law.

Most of these people came here with nothing and we as United States citizens owe them nothing but a safe trip back to where they came from.

-- Posted by IdahoGrumpy on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 11:43 AM

Well IdahoGrumpy and Mike, the 14th Amendment is the law of the land, and as such must be adhered to. There is no due process to revoke the citizenship of a child who had no choice where they were born and broke no laws. Do we punish based on the sins of the parent? Is that MORAL?

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 1:21 PM

"Moral or not that is what needs to be done."

-- Posted by IdahoGrumpy on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 8:08 PM

Buckshot, the Puritan experiment was referring to what happened here before the revolution. Their virtual running of the colony's government where they resided,therefore the 1st amendment. You are entitled to your opinion as to the 14th amendment, but as I've said before it is the law of the land at the moment. You and I do agree on welfare. I thought I made rather clear in the beginning.

Now on a side note, sir. If you have read any of my blogs in the archive, you will see I am a rather complex person. I hardly ever see things in black and white. to me there are a multitude shades of grey in the middle. What I do not bend on is when it comes to whether things are morally right or wrong. I favor neither party. In fact I favor none of the existing parties. Please read my bio.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 6:02 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Thoughts from an old progressive
Roy Pratt
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Send email to Roy Pratt
Almost 65 and retired. Raised by an East Coast liberal. I am also a child of the sixties.