Defining The “General Welfare” Clause Of The U.S. Constitution

What did the drafters of the U.S. Constitution mean by “… general Welfare of the United States…” found in Article I; Section 8?

The answer is found in Article III of the Articles of Confederation:
“The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other presence whatever.”

No further explanation needed.
Maybe a little explaining… the clause does not pertain to individual citizens, rather it is the ‘STATES’ being addressed in the clause.  “Friendship” among the states for, “the common defence…” of the state; “security of their Liberties…” the states; “mutual and general welfare…” of the state’s, not the individual.

Self – governance for Louisiana

As I have studied our Constitution over the last several years and the “original” meaning of the words contained in it, the more I realize we do not live under a system of self-governance. Originally the states considered themselves sovereign countries free to govern themselves as they pleased. The purpose of the Constitution (which I discovered isn’t the first constitution, but the second. Search “Articles Of Confederation”) was for the common defense and general welfare of the states, that is for each state to watch the back of the other state. States always intended to maintain their sovereignty. So what happen?

My opinion is the Constitution happened. The Articles Of Confederation, I believe, was the better Compact between the States preserving the sovereign identity. The Articles formed a loose Central government with next to no authority over the States. The Constitution we now live under was a result of a power grab by a faction wanting a stronger Central government. They got what they wanted.

Why do I state all this? I share this because I feel if we want to fix the problems in our state and in the country, we must learn the source of the problem, and that problem is we are no longer sovereign as a state. We are no longer in control of governing ourselves, but are controlled by a system of governing authority contained in the current two party system. The parties sell their supporters the idea they control their destiny through the election process of installing their party-backed candidates into office, but the reality is these candidates follow the beat of their party and the interests that finance their agenda. The parties are nationalists, meaning they do not recognize individual states as sovereign, but as satellites of the nation of the United States of America. This is why we have, for example, a US Department of Education, to set policy and guidelines and in most cases, the ability to enforce those policies and guidelines.

“Centralization” is the source of our problems. Here in our state, the centralization of our public education at the state level is the source of our problem. What makes this worse is the state has authority over public education constitutionally, Article VIII. Education, of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974.

The people of Louisiana are currently under attack by proponents of Common Core, which finance the political parties of the politicians, whom are elected by us to conduct government business on our behalf. Why are we, as the populace, sparring with our elected officials over keeping Common Core out of our school system? Shouldn’t this be an effortless task on the part of the people? I hope whoever is reading this is beginning to see the picture.

We are fighting Common Core in a defensive posture against the legislative and executive bodies of our state government. What about taking an offensive posture? What do you think of repealing or amending Article VIII. Education of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 and removing centralized control of our public education system from the state and putting that control in the hands of the people at the local and parish level? Doing so, in my opinion, would give us back that practice of self-governance, at least when it comes to education.

I submit this that you may ponder the notion and discuss it among your circles of influence. I do not know the details of accomplishing this. I do know it will be a very hard endeavor and it cannot be done by the action of one individual. That is all I have.

Two Factions, One Party System

After the House of Representatives approved the terms of the Senate on the 16th of October, 2013; and after I had calmed down, I realized that we do not live under a non effective two party system,  rather a very inconspicuous one party system with two factions. My initial comparison was to the two factions of Islam, sunni and shia. These two factions kill each other over difference in theology, both worship the same deity but the practice is different.

Similarly, Republicans and Democrats seek a common goal (that goal being money, power, and control) but their approach is ideologically different. On the left democrats seek their goal by means of a socialist government control. On the right, republicans seek the same desire by means of facist corporate control.

Where does that leave the citizenry?  To me, the two factions offer two ideologies that draw people naturally depending on which side of the brain is dominant. The People focus on the ideology of their faction but cannot see that the end result is the same between both. Republicans and Democrats will lash out at each other like arch rivals wanting complete annihilation of their adversaries. Read commentaries and comment threads of articles on political opinion, the exchanges are vicious and frenzy driven with hate. The topic for discussion is rarely brought up.

So the desire of this one party system is centralizing money, power, and control, aided by the dominions of people who ideologically think alike. Things like ratified intent, individual liberty, self govern, and state sovereignty are foreign to these people.

Republican and Democrat Analogy

I have Republican and Democrat analogy. 

If you have ever been to a food salvage store, you may find a basket with can food that has no labels on them. Though not always an 100% guarantee, some cans may have written on them with a black sharpie what is in the can so you pretty much know what you’re getting. That’s your Democrat.

Then you have those unlabeled cans that have no markings identifying what the contents of the cans are. That’s your Republican today. Its in a basket (the GOP party) with other unmarked cans (member republicans) you assume is food, but it can be a can of pink salmon or a can of Alpo.

That leaves the third parties, in particular the Libertarian Party. I can only compare this party to a Victory Garden in your yard. It’s homegrown, fresh, no additives and preservatives. It’s not processed with chemicals, filled with vital nutrients you would never get from canned food. It’s far cheaper than can food but requires some vigilance growing it, keeping bugs and weeds from destroying the plants and roots.

Simply put, it takes personal responsibility and attention to make that garden flourish.

That’s your libertarian.  One who takes responsibility for governing themselves by giving attention to who represents them so that they can enjoy the fruitful and nourishing benefits of Liberty.