A government of limited rights, or a limited government?

As I mentioned in my previous post, the abuse of the general welfare clause is a direct violation of our 10th amendment. So why is that bad, you still have free speech right?

Well, it is the 10th amendment which limits the powers of the government. This is a right most people don't even really know exists, and why would they since it isn't given.

As long as this amendment is ignored, and the general welfare clause is allowed to be abused, then we will continue to live under a government of limited rights, rather than a limited government. Because any issue than can be spun for the good of the people, can be construed as the "general welfare".

A fast food tax, which charges people extra money for fast food can be spun to be in the best interest of the people. As it influences them with money to eat better. But is that something Americans really want? Are the many other programs and departments created what they really want? In most cases, no it isn't.

Most republicans and independents who aren't in favor of the social programs automatically subscribe to likely the constitution, because they can see that the social programs are unconstitutional, and they currently are. Most democrats who are in favor of social programs will often site the general welfare clause as what makes it constitutional, without realizing that at the same time, their own broad general use of the term just allows for many things they don't like, and allows for other special interest groups to abuse the term for things they want. This is the major contributer of corruption in our government.

So how do you add those few social programs some americans do like, without abusing the general welfare clause that allows all those other bad things? By using the part of the constitution we are allowed to edit or amend - the amendments!