Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your post says the Constitution is a leftist document. First, when meanings and terms are legislative prerogatives, that's leftist. Second, when the legislature decides for the country what meanings and terms are, that's leftist.The Constitution is a centrist document, not a leftist document. The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were not exempt from the larger American principles and conventions. That is, terminology was established and understood before the Constitution was even drafted.The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.
your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.
That it would be a living document was an idea not seriously considered by the left until the Progressive Era.
The general welfare did not refer to the enrichment of some at the expense of others.
My post says nothing about the Constitution being a leftist document. The term general welfare was not a specific term. It was to be determined by the Congress. "Enrichment" of some at the expense of others was likely widely frowned upon. But, Id hardly call welfare "enrichment".
Go back to the full quote. That was OKTexas's point, you cut out the context of the quote. The full quote showed he is referring to collecting "justly levied" taxes, it is not saying all money belongs to the government.
Stop being a lying moron!!!
All Property, indeed ... seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick,
I agree on the quotes, it's been confusing. And that is the first part of the question, the rest of it is, where does the Constitution grant the Federal government that authority since the Constitution is a document of enumerated Federal powers.this multi-quote thing is really throwing me off. Did they change something, in the way it works?Cool. Care to answer the question?
Anyway the answer to the opening question if thats what you mean is: It is Consitutional.
I wish they would have a simple option to highlight parts of a post you wish to respond to and put it in as quotes. Theres probably a way to do it....but I dont find it simple in any way.
OK on the subject. I believe the General welfare clause authorizes welfare payments, cant remember how the federal powers are enumerated but you may have a point in that welfare payments are not specifically mentioned, However, like a lot of things the federal government does, it does this where the states do not want to do it. In other words If the feds werent handling it the states would be and your tax burden would be roughly the same or ....even more since the states generally have balanced budgets.
General welfare means that it applies to everyone. Like the military. The military does not discriminate, it protects all the population. The courts, everyone has access to redress grievances. The police protect everyone. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is not general welfare, it clearly benefits only the person receiving the money. Try again.
Also ask yourself why if "general welfare" means they can do anything they want, they bothered making 20% of the Constitution the 9th and 10th amendments. Why limit power you just said was unlimited?
Yes, that is correct, and no, they don't grasp that. And no other western power does that to their own corporations. Which is why ours are leaving. And rightly so. Let's fix the system and stop pushing them out the door.
Yet all we have from the Axis of Evil, Obama, Harry and Nancy is blaming the victim. Nothing will change, they are intent on achieving our doom.
Yes, LET THEM FUKKING LEAVE, IF they don't want tto pay their FAIR SHARE, FUCK THEM. Just like the bullshit off shoring of 'profits' Google, Apple, Microsoft', etc use to hide US profits and call it foreign
IF THE FUKKING CONS/GOPERS BELIEVED IN GOOD GOVERNANCE, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OBAMA, THEY DON'T. Obama proposed lowering the Corp tax rate to 28% and get rid of loopholes and use the extra revenues for infrastructure and guess what the party opf no said?
Obama's tax proposal of 28% was a fools trap, it came with downsides that were way worse than the cut.
Yes, that is correct, and no, they don't grasp that. And no other western power does that to their own corporations. Which is why ours are leaving. And rightly so. Let's fix the system and stop pushing them out the door.
Yet all we have from the Axis of Evil, Obama, Harry and Nancy is blaming the victim. Nothing will change, they are intent on achieving our doom.
Yes, LET THEM FUKKING LEAVE, IF they don't want tto pay their FAIR SHARE, FUCK THEM. Just like the bullshit off shoring of 'profits' Google, Apple, Microsoft', etc use to hide US profits and call it foreign
IF THE FUKKING CONS/GOPERS BELIEVED IN GOOD GOVERNANCE, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OBAMA, THEY DON'T. Obama proposed lowering the Corp tax rate to 28% and get rid of loopholes and use the extra revenues for infrastructure and guess what the party opf no said?
Obama's tax proposal of 28% was a fools trap, it came with downsides that were way worse than the cut.
Name them.
The Dems' motto: All Your Moneys Are Belong To Us.
GOPers just think Gov't should be free, especially wars!
Nice dodge of a legitimate questionYes, that is correct, and no, they don't grasp that. And no other western power does that to their own corporations. Which is why ours are leaving. And rightly so. Let's fix the system and stop pushing them out the door.
Yet all we have from the Axis of Evil, Obama, Harry and Nancy is blaming the victim. Nothing will change, they are intent on achieving our doom.
Yes, LET THEM FUKKING LEAVE, IF they don't want tto pay their FAIR SHARE, FUCK THEM. Just like the bullshit off shoring of 'profits' Google, Apple, Microsoft', etc use to hide US profits and call it foreign
IF THE FUKKING CONS/GOPERS BELIEVED IN GOOD GOVERNANCE, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OBAMA, THEY DON'T. Obama proposed lowering the Corp tax rate to 28% and get rid of loopholes and use the extra revenues for infrastructure and guess what the party opf no said?
Obama's tax proposal of 28% was a fools trap, it came with downsides that were way worse than the cut.
Name them.
Are you intellectually engaged, or do you just want to play cat and mouse? BTW, Google would answer that question for you simply if you just want to know, which is why I doubt the seriousness of your question. That and you're generally not interested in doing anything but defending Democrats.
I'll tell you what, if this is a genuine request, why don't you do a quick search and show me you're actually engaged in this. I'm tired of doing research for liberals who then never process the information anyway.
The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.
Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.
So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.
EDIT: Redistribution of wealth refers specifically to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. That means, at the Federal level, all forms of welfare including food stamps, AFDC, social security, medicare/medicaid, earmarks. All things which specifically take money from one citizen and place them directly in the hands of another.
It does not include the military, courts, national parks, anything that is for the general welfare, not specific welfare.
I voted "yes" because I unlike you understand the principle we are discussing here.
The PEOPLE have the right to vote yes on taxation no matter what the issue and all taxation is a redistribution of wealth. Sometimes we benefit from it, sometimes we don't. But in balance, we should benefit from it most of the time.
I know the Libertarian and Tea Party bias political noobs want to think we aren't allowed to vote for " 3 meals a day for a blind person" but sorry to burst your bubble, We The People can.
Not it's time for these parties to discuss if they want to vote for the spending on the actual issues, or want to police the people that take advantage of a flawed system driven by bias idiots that are unwilling to close loopholes and want to Nix it instead of Fix it......
MANY Americans along with me voted to provide meals for blind people and deaf people. It's time for you to stop attacking with a blanket approach and understand the American Constitution.
THE PEOPLE RUN AMERICA, NOT YOU, NOT THE CONSTITUTION. If the people want change, they can Change the Constitution, let's not let it come to that. Let's use some common sense first. ..
(Also, curious why people still don't know the Constitution can change and why people think Government Controls people and not the People controlling government....)
Nice dodge of a legitimate questionName them.
Are you intellectually engaged, or do you just want to play cat and mouse? BTW, Google would answer that question for you simply if you just want to know, which is why I doubt the seriousness of your question. That and you're generally not interested in doing anything but defending Democrats.
I'll tell you what, if this is a genuine request, why don't you do a quick search and show me you're actually engaged in this. I'm tired of doing research for liberals who then never process the information anyway.
YOU claim there are downsides that were way worse
When challenged....you reply, Look it up!
But laws that helps some while deliberately hurting others, are clearly forbidden by the so-called "Welfare Clause".General Welfare does not apply to each individual the same. No law can help each person equally.
Yes, that is correct, and no, they don't grasp that. And no other western power does that to their own corporations. Which is why ours are leaving. And rightly so. Let's fix the system and stop pushing them out the door.
Yet all we have from the Axis of Evil, Obama, Harry and Nancy is blaming the victim. Nothing will change, they are intent on achieving our doom.
Yes, LET THEM FUKKING LEAVE, IF they don't want tto pay their FAIR SHARE, FUCK THEM. Just like the bullshit off shoring of 'profits' Google, Apple, Microsoft', etc use to hide US profits and call it foreign
IF THE FUKKING CONS/GOPERS BELIEVED IN GOOD GOVERNANCE, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OBAMA, THEY DON'T. Obama proposed lowering the Corp tax rate to 28% and get rid of loopholes and use the extra revenues for infrastructure and guess what the party opf no said?
Obama's tax proposal of 28% was a fools trap, it came with downsides that were way worse than the cut.
Name them.
Are you intellectually engaged, or do you just want to play cat and mouse? BTW, Google would answer that question for you simply if you just want to know, which is why I doubt the seriousness of your question. That and you're generally not interested in doing anything but defending Democrats.
I'll tell you what, if this is a genuine request, why don't you do a quick search and show me you're actually engaged in this. I'm tired of doing research for liberals who then never process the information anyway.
The Constitutionally formed government did
And yes YOU, as a private citizen, have a right to challenge those interpretations of our Constitution
What are you waiting for?
I was waiting for a HarryReidshna to explain it to me. Got it, thanks.
I'm sure he can...
Our Constitution allows you, as a citizen, to challenge all laws through the courts or the elective process. You obviously don't agree with the way our Constitution has been interpreted for the last 200 years. But rather than take action against laws you disagree with, you choose to bitch on an anonymous message board
You also seem to confuse federal functions, which is to maintain a union of independent States, with State functions, which are to take care of their people.
The Constitution is a centrist document, not a leftist document. The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were not exempt from the larger American principles and conventions. That is, terminology was established and understood before the Constitution was even drafted.The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.
your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.
That it would be a living document was an idea not seriously considered by the left until the Progressive Era.
The general welfare did not refer to the enrichment of some at the expense of others.
My post says nothing about the Constitution being a leftist document. The term general welfare was not a specific term. It was to be determined by the Congress. "Enrichment" of some at the expense of others was likely widely frowned upon. But, Id hardly call welfare "enrichment".
The Constitution is a centrist document, not a leftist document. The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were not exempt from the larger American principles and conventions. That is, terminology was established and understood before the Constitution was even drafted.The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.
your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.
That it would be a living document was an idea not seriously considered by the left until the Progressive Era.
The general welfare did not refer to the enrichment of some at the expense of others.
The term general welfare was not a specific term. It was to be determined by the Congress.
You also seem to confuse federal functions, which is to maintain a union of independent States, with State functions, which are to take care of their people.
So you support the existence of a welfare state, so long as the federal government isn't the one administering it? You believe that a legitimate function of the federal government is to maintain a union of independent welfare states?
YOU made the claim and are unwilling to back it upNice dodge of a legitimate questionName them.
Are you intellectually engaged, or do you just want to play cat and mouse? BTW, Google would answer that question for you simply if you just want to know, which is why I doubt the seriousness of your question. That and you're generally not interested in doing anything but defending Democrats.
I'll tell you what, if this is a genuine request, why don't you do a quick search and show me you're actually engaged in this. I'm tired of doing research for liberals who then never process the information anyway.
YOU claim there are downsides that were way worse
When challenged....you reply, Look it up!
LOL, you never answer my questions. What a hypocrite.
Actually, I didn't dodge her at all, I asked if she was serious about discussing it. I didn't just say look it up, I said start by searching, then if she is serious, I'm in. I ALWAYS do that without being asked, I never ask a question like that without searching on my own first. Ever. Then again, I'm an achiever and you're a parasite, so that's no surprise.
The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.
You also seem to confuse federal functions, which is to maintain a union of independent States, with State functions, which are to take care of their people.
So you support the existence of a welfare state, so long as the federal government isn't the one administering it? You believe that a legitimate function of the federal government is to maintain a union of independent welfare states?
Support it, in a limited manner maybe, but if there is to be one, it would be the function of the individual States to make that determination, not the feds.
The Constitutionally formed government did
And yes YOU, as a private citizen, have a right to challenge those interpretations of our Constitution
What are you waiting for?
I was waiting for a HarryReidshna to explain it to me. Got it, thanks.
I'm sure he can...
Our Constitution allows you, as a citizen, to challenge all laws through the courts or the elective process. You obviously don't agree with the way our Constitution has been interpreted for the last 200 years. But rather than take action against laws you disagree with, you choose to bitch on an anonymous message board
Except the supremes have ruled that an individual tax payer doesn't have standing, care to try again?
