Would you Believe...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. Consider:
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." The Constitution created a national government which is to benefit everybody equally and is not designed to help individual people at the expense of the whole. The state and local governments can do that if they wish, but not the national government. It is neutral and only should pass laws that benefit every American in the same way.
You’ve never heard those last two sentences before, have you. But that is exactly what Cleveland is saying and he is exactly right.
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 understood 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). That theory is exactly what I stated above—that federal government expenditures are to help every American equally, not benefit certain private individuals at the expense of the rest. He's exactly right about that, too. But, Congress has well learned that you can buy votes unless you spend other people’s money.
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 some day, 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.
We laud our current Supreme Court for being so “conservative” and “sticking with the Constitution.” They aren’t even close. Well, they do get more right than liberal Courts do, but do you think the current Court would abolish all the welfare programs if these unconstitutional expenditures were challenged? Not a chance.
"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.