'The outstanding need seems to be for a democratic mechanism which can direct action in behalf of the general welfare.'
' Henry A. Wallace
Constitutional scholars, men and women who have served in the upper echelons of the government, who have studied at the most prestigious institutions of education, all seem to think the general welfare clause has gone extinct.
How else can we explain the tremendous suffering felt by our society, due in large part to the consequences of governmental actions taken, which seem to totally disregard the general welfare?
I guess the general welfare doesn't include the concerns or needs of the majority of our citizens; after all, what constitutes the general welfare is determined by the sitting congress. They, who supposedly represent us, can determine what things constitute the general welfare, as provided through their congressional powers.
Since we know the bulk of congress represents mostly big-money-transnational-interests, reflected in the laws they pass, their campaign donors, and their all-time low approval ratings by the American citizens they supposedly serve; we can begin to see how the general welfare no longer includes the welfare of the general population here in America, and especially the lower class, those living in poverty, and the jobless.
Instead, we are forced to suffer the consequences of a corrupt oligarch, passing laws that actually do harm to the general welfare of the majority of Americans. For instance, was it in the general welfare of our citizens to be foreclosed upon by mega-transnational-banks due to an illegitimate market, where one side of the transaction had information not provided to the other? Or, would it have been in the general welfare of our citizens to have the government claim, through eminent domain, all those properties, to rework new loans, loans that represented their real value, like Mayor McLaughlin
is attempting to do in Richmond, California?
Was it in the general welfare to dump tons of toxic dispersants
in the Gulf of Mexico, which, when combined with the oil it sought to coagulate, created a toxic byproduct hazardous to life, including human life
Was it in the general welfare to award a price-gouging 'health' industry a mandatory customer base to suffer the consequences of a for-profit-healthcare system, which is currently the world's most expensive health care system, but delivers the 46th most efficient health care services, leaving us 24th in the world in life longevity, and among only 2-3 other developed countries in the entire world that does not provide maternity benefits for mothers producing the next generation of our citizens?
How about legalizing the destruction of our planet, and allowing giant gas behemoths' to literally kill us slowly with their methane gas leaks, their enormous consumption of fresh water, and the toxic particles they have saturated our soil and airways with, was that in the general welfare also?
The government, literally performs numerous acts that are in no way advancing or even acknowledging the general welfare of Americans, and most times, their actions actively harm the American people's way of life, and future prosperity.
Was going to war in Iraq on made-up evidence in the general welfare? Especially for the over 30000 soldiers
who have died or been injured, how about for their families, how about in their communities, how about for all the already strapped citizens burdening the financial load of such actions ' how was that in the general welfare of our nation?
I guess we need to create a General Welfare Amendment, to specify that the General Welfare of the nation is determined upon the success of the majority of our citizens, not just those in the government, or the even smaller amount of people in positions of power and influence due to their large wealth accumulations. Perhaps then we can bring back the general welfare clause from extinction, we surely could use it.
Remember, we revolted from England because the British King, as stated in The Declaration of Independence, 'had refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good'.
Meaning he didn't give two shits about the general welfare of Americans, nor did his rules or laws, sound familiar?