I believe we would have to convert our present constitution into a napoleonic constitution for it to have to be worded that precisely, but according to our present constitution it has to be enumerated or it is left to the states or to the people(individuals not a collective).
I would assume that skippy was trying to say that it is possible that an organization that by thier own admission only speaks for 400,000 members, in 1,200 neighborhoods, in 75 cities across 40 or so states, could hardly be considered as general(applying to all or most of a group) welfare(benefit: something that aids or promotes well being). Since I believe the general welfare clause is the most prostituted clause and would be the enumerated power stated to empower the federal or more accurately the national government to fund Acorn or any other private enity non-profit or for-profit. How can it be justified as general welfare when it encompasses so few? In those 40 or so states it is a lot closer match, in the 75 cities still closer, in the 1,200 neighborhoods its closer and when we reach the 400,000 members it is a perfect match as to general. I also think it fits pretty good for welfare, the members get the satisfaction and joy of giving, the recipients get the benifit of the help, and this is 100% voluntary, 100% charity as opposed to .5% voluntary, 10% charity and 89.5% coercion(all percentages are guestimites).
IMHO Acorn should lose the national governments funding, as there is not anywhere it is enumerated, although that could change if a large enough group of states agree and ammend the constitution. Acorn may have a case with getting state, city or other local government funding, but thats as high up the chain they should go.
Acorns' mission statement pretty much says they want to organize a low to moderate income majority, because those are the best advocates for thier communities. That doesnt sound like general welfare to me, more like general misery.
You're numbers are speaking of members? ACORN supposedly helps anyone who is 'disadvantaged' to get welfare, homes, and become registered voters so as to be productive and active members of our society. The money that goes to them I am sure flows out to and helps more than only 400,000 people in our country.
But do they address issues of national importance? I am fairly certain to say that they do. When people are poor, do not have jobs, or do not have homes they become a burden on the society that they are part of. In some areas, especially if there are high unemployment rates, the state may lack the funds to properly take care of such a situation. The unemployed will drag down the rest of their community and the cheapest most likely solution will be to take authoritative action and try to get rid of these 'hindrances' (note that even being in a relatively prosperous area while I was living in my car [not for lack of a job] I was hassled by the police and told that I was unable to sleep in my car on public land [which I was paying taxes towards even]). Eventually the level of unemployed and homeless will drag their community down to the point that it is no longer advantageous for these people to be there and they will move along to another location. If that location is similarly unable to deal with the situation the cycle will continue as these people leave damage and misery in their wake moving from one place to the next hoping that someone somewhere will be able to help them realize a stable lifestyle(have you seen/read Grapes of Wrath?). For this reason the issue of the poor and disadvantaged becomes one of national import.
Last edited by a moderator: