really should have is the question of whether there is such a thing as a a common good or a public interest or a national interest or a general welfare do these words do these terms mean anything other than the good of all of the individuals in the country that that's an important yeah so so that's right so that's why so i object to it because i think it's too easy to interpret it as so i interpret it as well what's good for the you know a general a group a common uh uh people or just collection of individuals so what's good for the individual is good for the common welfare but i understand that that is a that's something that is hard for people to grasp and and not the common understanding so i was i i would have skipped the general welfare in order to avoid the fact that now the general office includes the government telling you what gender you should be assigned to so so i would have i would have wanted to have skipped that completely um so i think the the constitution is pretty consistent with the the declaration with a few exceptions the general welfare but you know perfection is is a difficult thing to find particularly for me right politically but it's it's a magnificent document the constitution it doesn't quite rise to the level i think of the declaration but it's a magnificent document because you know and this is the difference i think between the english constitution here's here's what i see is the difference the difference is that the the constitution is written in the context of why do we have a separation of powers for example we have a separation of powers in order to make sure that the government only does what the government is supposed to do and what is the government supposed to do well fundamentally it's supposed to protect rights i mean all of those seven or at least six of the seven about protecting rights they're about protecting us from foreign invaders about protecting uh you know peace within the country they're about preserving this protection of rights and why do we have this separation to so so that we make sure that no one of those entities the executive or the legislature judicial can violate rights because there's always somebody looking over their shoulder there's always somebody who can veto their power but there's a purpose to it and that purpose is clearly uh signified and characterized and that's why i think the bill of rights was written in order to add to the clarification of what exactly we mean what is the purpose the purpose is to preserve rights um and that's why we need to to elaborate with those rights and and madison's objection to the bill of rights was to say not that he objected to having a protection of rights but to listing them because he was worried that other rights that were not listed would not be and his worry was completely justified because that's exactly what's happened it's like the only reason we have free speech in america we've got it in writing as a first amendment if we didn't have any writing it would have been gone a long time ago and the reason we don't have for example the freedom to negotiate uh a a a contract uh you know independent government regulation is there was that was not listed as a right uh in the bill even though i think it's clearly covered under the constitution and certainly under the declaration so there was a massive
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN