Navigation

Tag Archives | Definitions

Living? Breathing?

By on August 16, 2010 in Constitution

Words mean things.

And context illuminates meaning.

Context not only includes other words within a given work, but also past and future writings of the authors, and the social and philosophical framework within which the work was produced.

The articles and sections of the Constitution mean things.

And context illuminates meaning.

Progressives view the Constitution as a living, breathing document.  Barak Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope:

“Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

In other words, the Constitution means – whatever you want it to mean. Continue Reading →

4

18th Century Definitions: General Welfare

By on October 8, 2009 in Originalism

I was looking through a copy of Samuel Johnson’s “A Dictionary of the English Language“ (published in 1755), and came across a few interesting definitions:

General:

1. Comprehending many species or individuals; not special.
3. Not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations
5. Public; comprising the whole

Welfare:

1. Happiness; success; prosperity

Clearly, these definitions, Constitutionally-speaking, are far different than what the politicians and pundits tell us. The “general Welfare” clause, as stated in the Tenth Amendment Center’s 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution, was actually meant as a limit on power – not an excuse to expand it:

The phrase, “general Welfare,” in Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to enact any laws it claims are in the “general Welfare” of the United States. The phrase sets forth the requirement that all laws passed by Congress in Pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution shall also be in the general Welfare of the United States. This was affirmed by James Madison when he wrote: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

7