Absolute Power Corrupts

Proponents of a weak, 'living,' evolving Constitution love to reference the concept of the 'general welfare' which appears in a few locations in the Constitution as justification for such programs as MediCare, Social Security, a federal minimum wage and ObamaCare; for which otherwise there is no specific justification in the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8.  Firstly, it appears in the Preamble, which; any student of law should be able to tell you confers no power or authority.  Preambles are merely statements of intent not empowerment.  The phrase also appears in Article 1, Section 8 under the power to lay and collect taxes clause.  It is important to remember that in the late 18th century the word 'welfare' meant something different that what we generally use it for today.  Back then, 'welfare' meant a general state of well-being.  It certainly did not mean, as we regularly use it today to mean entitlement payment or transfer payment or other financial support given as a gift from the national treasury from tax revenue.  General welfare in 1787 referred to things that would benefit the country generally as a whole, such as the powers and duties enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of common defense of our national borders against threats, the coining of money, the raising of armies and navies, the establishment of post offices and roads and the establishment of a system of federal courts; to name a few.  The concept of the general welfare as used by liberals today is meant to confer federal benefits on individuals for their personal welfare and financial support.  This is a very different concept indeed.  But it is this concept of the 'general welfare' that liberals use to justify these federal entitlement programs that otherwise do not appear in the list of enumerated powers.  In essence this is the golden net, the catch-all phrase to justify federal meddling (taxing and spending and regulating) in areas that really are not specified and authorized by the Constitution.  It really opens up the Pandora's box and permits the government to anything it darn well pleases.  (The Interstate Commerce Clause is the other part of this power grab, but that's a different topic for a different day.)  But that begs the question.  If the drafters had intended to give the new centralized federal government authority to do anything and tax and spend for virtually anything, why bother to write the list of enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and why include Amendment 10 which grants powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution to the States?  Under the liberals' twisted logic, nothing is prohibited of the federal government by the Constitution.  And to further clarify, the Necessary and Proper clause ONLY authorizes the Congress to make laws for the execution of the powers outlined in the Constitution (back to Article 1, Section8).  If the federal government were to be all powerful (as liberals seem to posit) the Constitution would have been a very much shorter document (We establish a federal government to do anything it wants).  This idea flies in the face of the beliefs and intents of the Founders as is clear in their writings preceding and surrounding the time of the writing of the Constitution.  They were supremely skeptical of a strong centralized government.   So they set out the specific enumerated powers, reserved the rest to the States and established a rather unwieldy process for making changes.  The Constitution evolves only when it is formerly amended.  The problem for liberals is that this process is long and hard and rarely succeeds.  As it should be.  Our fundamental framework of federal government should not be changed frequently and for dubious reasons.  It should not change with the whims and winds of the day.  If it were constantly changing, there would be no certainty for tomorrow on which to make plans today.  Of course this is the great impediment for progressives (like Obama) who want to make sweeping wholesale changes in our society and government and get it done yesterday.  Amendment just doesn't suit that plan.  So, they have used the courts to subvert (at least in their minds) the meaning of the Constitution, bending and twisting it to suit their needs.  Thus Justice Douglas found his mysterious penumbras and emanations.  Today this has been taken to new heights with President Obama and his administration and some in Congress simply ignoring the Constitution altogether, thus bypassing the judicial process and speeding up the transformation.  This bodes for dangerous and dire times ahead.  Who holds their feet to the Constitutional fire?