From: DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...
> [preamble] ... defines the people's right to "welfare"
> from the Federal government.
Some excellent responses offered. I'd put the basic
arguments in four aspects:
1. Original intent [if they respect that], with quotes
from Madison in Federalist 41:
2. Legal construction [if they're lawyers], with the
note of Justice Story that a broad interpretation runs
contrary to the enumerated powers that follow:
3. Common sense [if they have any ;o], with the
distinction between "promoting" conditions that are
beneficial to all (noting equal treatment under law),
rather than *providing* for every need (which must
4. Moral sense [...] that charitable assistance to
those who are innocent victims of misfortune cannot
be coerced, since that destroys any moral value in
I like the last one, for many reasons. The best
way to disarm opponents is to appeal to their values.
Government cannot provide *love* for those in need,
attending to their individual suffering or encouraging
their efforts; it can only take and give according to
the cold strictures of law. Nobody in government can
*care* about individuals.