The bolded is true, but my parry was purely a matter of textual reality -- not textual or any real interpretation at all.
@Maj. Bill Martin True enough. My statement centered on the interpretation thereof: Using the literal meaning of the words as you presented them (in defense of Social Security (and welfare)) as a direct assault upon the establishment of enumerated powers, which is the purpose of the document.
It is a particular peeve of mine, similarly found in Biblical verse-slingers... wherein the context is often lost upon the partial knowledge contained in the verse. I am a literalist when it comes to text, by the way, strictly so... But the course of that requires the whole text, to include context and intent.
All I did was point out the inarguable textual fact that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 -- which is the actual grant of Congressional power -- does indeed use the word "provide" and not just "promote". I was just making a point about the literal text itself for the sake of accuracy. Or are you saying that I misquoted Article I, Section 8?
No... my only argument is the use there of - the literal use of the phrase cannot upend the enumerated powers as expressed... Or the document means nothing.
The second, unbolded part of your statement - "in your [my] general defense of national social security" is something I never said, or even fairly implied. I never defended that, and what's kind of frustrating about that is that should have been completely clear if you read my posts.
Then you should have no argument with me at all, or
@Hoodat either for that matter.
This is a direct quote from my post that was just two up from the one you quoted. I don't see how anyone could have read this and thought I was defending the Constitutionality of federal social welfare programs:
Not really sure how I could have been more clear.
The first thought in bold (fully quoted here)
But then what does "general welfare" exclude? Because I think if I follow your reasoning, the only proper answer to that is literally "nothing". I honestly can't conceive of any government program or policy that the government itself wouldn't/couldn't be justified as providing for the "general welfare". Can you?
... seems to be a defense of the liberal use of 'general welfare'... Admittedly the second bolded thought seemed a follow-through to the idea that even if the Constitution, the SCOTUS deemed otherwise... wrongly (politically) or not.
On a second read perhaps you've been playing devil's advocate a bit - But that still does not explain the obfuscation of the idea in your use of 'defending the elderly', which has never been the argument at all - The argument has always been whether it is within the purview of the federal government to provide those systems (social security and welfare) - An argument in which I stand vehemently against. The retirement and care of the elderly, the widow, and the cripple has never been in question - The question is who should (and should not) provide that care. And the federal government certainly should not. It is not within their authority.
A long time ago, I remember discussing the various New Deal cases in Constitutional Law, and had a professor who was an unabashed liberal, as was most of the class. So after most of the class spoke up the in support of the Court upholding the Social Security Act, I piped up and said "that interpretation of the "general welfare" provision could be used to justify basically anything, without limits, because what government action can't be claimed to be for the "general welfare? They should have struck it down." To the professor's credit, he said "Oh, you're absolutely right. I like the result of the case, and was glad they decided it how they did, but if they were really following the Constitution, they should have struck it down."
Not many honest liberals left, unfortunately.
My argument precisely
If 'general welfare' means 'anything', then the document means nothing.
