• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

The Nation: It Violates the Constitution Not to Vote for Sandy Relief

The Nation’s John Nichols pretends the general welfare clause was a positive grant of power. If you don’t vote to provide hurricane relief, you are violating this clause of the Constitution.

Here I explain what the clause actually means.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • http://twitter.com/DWMFtweets DWMF

    Just so I’m clear… by this logic, not only is absolutely everything constitutional, but everything that the government does is required to be done and it would be unconstitutional NOT to do, right?

    Like blowing up Pakistani children. That provides for the general welfare, right?

  • Anonymous

    If the general welfare clause was an explicit grant of power and means exactly what statists says it means, then the rest of the constitution is completely pointless because the government can then do anything else it wants because literally anything could be argued as being in the “general welfare”. This makes no sense, obviously.

  • William Leggett

    Even if one subscribes to the view that the general welfare clause is, in fact, just what one considers to be for the general welfare and disregards its connection to specific items listed in the constitution, this still wouldn’t justify relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy, since this is not general but particular relief.

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.mcnair.5030 Steve Mcnair

    I guess in the case of hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., it’s the “general weather clause.” Hardy har har.

  • Anonymous

    Hamilton seems to be alive and well.
    ——————————————–
    Family Survival Course Book

  • Franklin

    Heh, that actually wasn’t too bad.

  • Anonymous

    It’s okay, you’re only a pseudo-intellectual when you support freedom.

  • Anonymous

    By which I mean to say, we shouldn’t be debating this.

    Yes, we have to debate this, we have to understand this. All knowledge must be taught, all wisdom must be learned, and we haven’t been taught and we need to learn.

    But, strictly speaking, this is so clear and obvious we need to understand exactly how mercifully condescending we are being by entertaining these people in debate.

    The Nation might as well argue that fire is not in fact hot, indeed that we are harming ourselves by not touching it, because the nature of fire is that it is warm and inviting and to not touch it is to shun warmth.

    Combine that with Washington’s government and fire as servant or master, and you have a darn good allegory.