Richard Amrhine's April 15 column ["Promoting the general welfare: It's in the Constitution"] borders on rabble rousing.

He misstated both the purpose of the general welfare statement in our Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court in our legal system.

"Promote the general welfare" is part of the Constitution's preamble, which sets forth the reason the framers put together the Constitution.

But the preamble does not confer any powers on the federal government, and a scheme is not constitutional just because it promotes the general welfare.

As an extreme example, a law confiscating all of Mr. Amrhine's personal property and distributing it among the populace would certainly enhance the general welfare but it would also be a bill of attainder (a law targeting a single person), which is unconstitutional.

Also, Mr. Amrhine stated that he wants the Supreme Court to suggest an alternative to Obamacare in the event that they declare the law unconstitutional.

However, legislating is not the role of the Supreme Court; it simply decides if a law is constitutional. And the constitutionality of a law does not depend on whether a better alternative (or even any alternative) exists.

If Mr. Amrhine wants Obamacare to be implemented, he should look to Congress to pass a version that is constitutional.

Gene Cole

Stafford