In the Oct. 26 Herald there was a very articulate and eloquent letter, “General welfare needs promoting.” The author would have us believe that the Constitution was established to “promote the general welfare,” and that this clause gives the government not just the authority,
but the obligation, to take money away from some to provide health care to others.
I would suggest the letter writer read the Federalist Papers. These essays have become the dominant reference for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution as intended by the framers.
The two primary authors, Madison and Hamilton, wrote theories on the intent of this clause. While Madison wrote “that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers,” which health care is not, Hamilton believed Congress could spend at its discretion, “providing that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.”
It seems to me, and judging by the poll numbers to an overwhelming percentage of Americans, that taking money away from some to give to others definitely favors one class of people. The founding fathers never intended the “general welfare” clause, as written in Article I, Section 8, to provide unlimited funding to give away to an ever increasing populace who rely on government to take care of their every need.
I would also submit to the writer that just because someone doesn’t agree with your philosophies doesn’t necessarily mean they are ignorant or less evolved than you; it simply means they have a different opinion.
Disparaging others to make yourself feel intellectually enlightened quells debate and hurts us all. I don’t disagree that the current health care system is broken. I do disagree with the repair being proposed by politicians.
Kevin English
Marysville
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
