That section of it had essentially no legal force, given that it can be construed to authorize literally anything.
For instance, one might argue that a eugenics program to eliminate all “inferior” genes from the population “promotes the general welfare” of the people. You don’t actually want language that incredibly vague to have legal force
You don’t actually want language that incredibly vague to have legal force
I don’t buy that, “The 8th amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment has no legal force because it can be construed to mean anything, someone could argue having to pay their taxes was cruel and unusual” makes about as much sense to me. Words mean things, especially when they’re in the context of the rest of the Constitution’s clauses that suggest certain things are or aren’t allowed, so I just don’t see how throwing General Welfare on to the table instantly greenlights a reign of terror.
Also, it’s not like the non-enforcement of General Welfare prevented eugenicist policies in the past
While it has no legal force, it does show what the laws that govern our society should reflect. The DOJ has no problem following a suggested notion that “no sitting president can be charged with a crime”, why can’t it follow a clearly stated purpose of:
“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”?
i.e the DOJ shouldn’t be attempting this at all. It should just stay silent and let one of the gas companies attempt this insane notion instead
Guess we just forget about the whole “promote the general welfare” part of the constitution when it gets in the way of profits?
Color me shocked.
That section of it had essentially no legal force, given that it can be construed to authorize literally anything.
For instance, one might argue that a eugenics program to eliminate all “inferior” genes from the population “promotes the general welfare” of the people. You don’t actually want language that incredibly vague to have legal force
I don’t buy that, “The 8th amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment has no legal force because it can be construed to mean anything, someone could argue having to pay their taxes was cruel and unusual” makes about as much sense to me. Words mean things, especially when they’re in the context of the rest of the Constitution’s clauses that suggest certain things are or aren’t allowed, so I just don’t see how throwing General Welfare on to the table instantly greenlights a reign of terror.
Also, it’s not like the non-enforcement of General Welfare prevented eugenicist policies in the past
While it has no legal force, it does show what the laws that govern our society should reflect. The DOJ has no problem following a suggested notion that “no sitting president can be charged with a crime”, why can’t it follow a clearly stated purpose of:
“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”?
i.e the DOJ shouldn’t be attempting this at all. It should just stay silent and let one of the gas companies attempt this insane notion instead