“If a law to donate aid to any farmer or cattleman who has had poor crops or lost his cattle comes within the meaning of the phrase “to provide for the General Welfare of the United States,” why should not similar gifts be made to grocers, shopkeepers, miners, and other businessmen who have made losses through financial depression, or to wage earners out of employment? Why is not their property equally within the purview of the General Welfare?”

At no place, in any founding document, by no one, did the phrase "General Welfare of the United States" mean anything other than the body politic of the States united. To speculate or expand such understanding is to further diminish the once secular and free representative republic. To make a moral issue out of the phrase is to make a socialistic theocracy out of a secular administration at law.

Right on, Mike.

A bill came up before Grover Cleveland to monetarily aid the farmers in the west when rains failed to come. He made a wonderful speech while vetoing it about using the People's money(hum, he didn't say the governments money) for such a cause. If a state wants personal and/or corporate welfare it has that right-the federal government does not.

Mike and cal, right on!

Kudos to Mike of Norwalk. You are absolutely and clearly correct.