Welfare is Unconstitutional

And all great American statesmen knew it until Franklin Roosevelt came along, ignored the Constitution, and set this country down the path of a debt we'll never repay and that will, sooner or later, destroy America economically. Our current public welfare system has no basis, warrant, nor authorization in our Constitution. Let's look at it.

In February, 1887, President Grover Cleveland (whom I believe to be one of our three greatest presidents, perhaps even the best), vetoed a bill that would have appropriated money for drought-stricken farmers in Texas. Upon vetoing the bill, Cleveland said, "I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering, which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

He went on to say--and please read this very carefully, especially the part I have italicized--"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood." Cleveland vetoed hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Is there anything today that Congress won't appropriate money for?

Cleveland wasn't the only president who held the above view. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill. He said, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, Pierce wrote, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." (emphasis mine). He's exactly write about that, too. More on that in a future post.

James Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution." He played a major, perhaps the major role in writing the document, so if anybody ought to know what it meant, it would be Madison. In 1794, he was irate over a $15,000 congresssional appropriation to assist some French refugees. He wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Oh, but James. It no doubt bought the French-American vote...

Read the Constitution sometimes, folks. I promise you, it is NOT difficult to understand. The problem with the Constitution is not with its difficulty of comprehension. The problem is--it stands in the way of Congress and the President wasting our resources under the pretense of taking care of us.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."--James Madison. Boy, did he call that one.

(With thanks to Walter Williams, from an article of whose I took much of this material. He has some great articles. Check out his website. I can't put links here but Google Walter Williams and he'll come up.)