How General is Your Welfare?

If you are fortunate to be just like me, which I doubt, you find yourself partaking in a few adult beverages at your favorite public house or saloon every now and then; for me, usually more now than then. It was at one of these fine establishments the other day I started some witty banter about the government's role in health insurance is not valid when another patron uttered this: "Health care is a right. Besides, under the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution, it's legal." The phase "general welfare" does appear in Article One, Section One. Yet it does not mean what this gentleman wants it to mean. No, the word "welfare" in the Constitution doesn't mean free goodies; it means well-being. All we need to do is turn to an eighteenth century dictionary; the first Constitution of the USA, and the man who wrote the Constitution to see this is true.

First, the expression "welfare" as defined in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified, meant "Happiness; success; prosperity," all according to Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language" (published 1755). Now, I understand it's 2013, so let's see what an updated dictionary says. According to "The Free Dictionary," the first definition of "welfare" is "Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. Prosperity." The second meaning, added later to usage of the English language is "Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government to people in need." The second meaning, what we would define as "welfare," didn't exist at the time of ratification. "Welfare" then means especially as ratified, "well-being."

Also, if you paid attention in history class, (and you had about 13 chances to do so), the first Constitution of the USA was the Articles of Confederation. "Welfare" was lifted from Article III and placed in the new Constitution. What did Article III say? This: The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, 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 pretense whatever." If you notice, the article talks about protecting your well-being, just like Article One, Section One of the Constitution, ("The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...").

Now, let's see how the true definition fits in with Article III: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general well-being, 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 pretense whatever, [emphasis added]." How about the twisted definition? "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general governmental aid, 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 pretense whatever, [emphasis added]." It looks like the first one makes sense.

Finally, when opponents of the new Constitution were worried that the expression "general welfare" was going to get mangled and Congress would take it to mean what we now know welfare to be, (go figure, Patrick Henry was right), James Madison, the guy who wrote the fucking Constitution, put their worries aside in Federalist 41: "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." What did he mean? He meant, "I wrote an introduction stating that we can collect and spend money, and then listed exactly what we can spend the money on." Alas, healthcare isn't in the list. Oh, he even alluded to the Articles of Confederation when addressing the "welfare" worriers: "The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are 'their common defense, security or their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.'" What's he saying to those who oppose the phrase "general welfare?" Hey, motherfuckers, it meant 'well-being' two days ago, and it still means 'well-being!'"

As you can see, the term "general welfare," legally speaking, means "prosperity," or "well-being." You know, like that recent NFL player, worried about concussions, quit football, saying, "I need to worry about my welfare." He didn't mean government assistance. Therefore, healthcare as government assistance is not constitutionally valid. Should we see people receive healthcare? Yes, but there are better ways, and you have no Constitutional authority to do so.