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.
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.
The old "If it isn't 100% perfect then it's unacceptable" dodge is one of the sillier diversions used by the big-govt advocates. Can you imagine the result if it were applied to Obamacare?
Wealth redistribution is clearly unconstitutional.
The fact that you would have to do research to be able to name any of the downsides you claim that not only exist, but were "way worse than the cut" tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about
If the taxation power is being used to redistribute wealth, or other wise manipulate society, it's being abused. The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to use as a 'workaround' for things government would like to do, but otherwise haven't been authorized by the Constitution.
I think those who pushed for the 16th amendment knew that wealth can pool up in a society at the top.....this is essentially what happened in the monarchy the founding generation rejected. Progressive Income taxes allowed by the 16th,(and not really disallowed by the Constitution in its original form either) is a partial remedy for that. Some may choose to call that "redistribution"
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.
Great post, fellow lybyryl! Now drive the point home by quoting the exact line from the Constitution that says Congress may, at any time, set or change the definitions of words and phrases in the text of the Constitution. These small-government extremists won't have a leg to stand on then.
What foolishness to say that these quotes advocate for the confiscation of wealth in order to redistribute it. You realize, don't you, that the young nation was a republic without an inherited aristocracy or nobility? It had no unmerited accumulation or inequality of riches. By virtue of the natural law, all citizens - president and yeoman farmer - were peers.Ben didn't know any billionaires. Your assumptions are laughable.
Again, YOU are a moron. Got it
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers
The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes.
–Noah Webster
The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.
George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."
James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."
Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."
Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html
YOU made the claim and are unwilling to back it up
Do you now admit you were wrong?
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.
Another one of these pathetic "look at me, I failed high school Civics" threads.
Shit people, stop embarrassing yourselves.
Wealth is not redistributed. If you had any, you'd understand.
The fact that you would have to do research to be able to name any of the downsides you claim that not only exist, but were "way worse than the cut" tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about
your history of ignoring every argument that is counter to the interest of your party
I am an achiever, you are a leach.
you ask for data with no intellectual curiosity and then ignore everything I tell you.
I frankly cannot grasp how you would not care enough to want to search your own links instead of reading ones that I select. It's easy, easier than writing your whining post.
I am not playing the game anymore where you ask for data with no intellectual curiosity and then ignore everything I tell you. Get engaged in the discussion, and I will be glad to provide you all the information you want.
YOU made the claim and are unwilling to back it up
Do you now admit you were wrong?
You ... are are chastising ... me ... for not backing up a claim?
That is just too funny. I ask you questions over and over and get no answer. And you demand an answer? You? LOL, here's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.
But Adams, Madison, and even the big-govt fanatic Hamilton realized that the wealth redistribution they envisioned, could not be implemented without resorting to outright theft.
For that reason, they wisely decided to leave it out of the Constitution, thus denying the Fed govt any authority to do it.
That was quite possibly the last time in recorded American history that big-government advocates showed common sense.
Yes, they left it up to future generations, as they knew it was a living document they created
But Adams, Madison, and even the big-govt fanatic Hamilton realized that the wealth redistribution they envisioned, could not be implemented without resorting to outright theft.
For that reason, they wisely decided to leave it out of the Constitution, thus denying the Fed govt any authority to do it.
That was quite possibly the last time in recorded American history that big-government advocates showed common sense.
Yes, they left it up to future generations, as they knew it was a living document they created
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.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.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.Anyway the answer to the opening question if thats what you mean is: It is Consitutional.
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.
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?
I dont see why making something a legislative prerogative means its leftist..........but whatever. 50 cents certainly doesn't make anyone rich...........but I see your being a bit picky on definitions.See my post 165Your 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.
And when you give 50 cents to a panhandler, you have enriched him.
Perhaps thats the only way to get at understanding of the general population..............but I think the intent of the "big government" Federalists is proof enough of the intent of the framers anyway.You need to do some research how those terms were defined at the time they were used, that is the only way to get true intent.
Bullshit, prove all of these claims. Provide specific citations via links to the posts I have made on USMB that back up all of these statements
YOU made the claim and are unwilling to back it up
Do you now admit you were wrong?
You ... are are chastising ... me ... for not backing up a claim?
Yes, because that's exactly what you've done.
That is just too funny. I ask you questions over and over and get no answer. And you demand an answer? You? LOL, here's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.
What a nice attempt at deflection and shooting the messenger. I notice that you didn't deny the fact that you haven't backed up your claim, and you continue to not back it up at all.
Congrats on becoming what you claim to hate, I suppose.
The federalists, such as Hamilton were the big government advocates of the day (which makes it ironic that conservatives today generally defend them). Their understanding of the General welfare was very broad as proven by the national bank fight some short years after ratification. It was basically anything the legislature thought it should be.
The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.
If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it
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.
The authority for the redistribution of wealth doesn't come from the Constitution itself, nor does it need to; it comes from the social contract made by every U.S. citizen. This contract supersedes the Constitution, as the Constitution (and indeed, the other organic laws of the United States) relies on it for both power and authority.
As we know from the Declaration of Independence--which has legal status as an organic law of the U.S., the same as the Constitution--the powers of government are derived from "the consent of the governed". Nearly the entirety of American citizenry (i.e., everyone but the few raving lunatic libertarians that frequent forums like these to spew their nonsense everywhere) has given implied consent to every action the federal government takes in regard to wealth redistribution. This consent has been given by various methods, but especially includes voting for politicians that want and take action to institute wealth redistribution, continue wealth redistribution, and refine methods involved in wealth redistribution.
No contract is a one-way mandate; rather, contracts require all parties involved to perform their duties established under the contract, and to enforce the terms of the contract in the event it is ever violated. We the People, the citizens of the United States, are one party in the contract; the other party is our government, which consists of individual citizens elected from among larger bodies of other citizens. When We the People began electing our fellow citizens to positions of power, and they began using that power to violate the Constitution, the only appropriate action at that point would be to dispute the action and, if necessary, remove our representatives in government from office. Instead, the actions are never seriously disputed--by election, recall referendum, lawsuit, or other court challenge--and most of the people causing these actions are re-elected. Joe Wilson (R-SC), for example, co-sponsored a bill that would "reauthorize, revise, and extend State family assistance grants for FY 2004 through 2008 and make annual appropriations." His most recent bid for re-election, in 2012, saw him taking in 96% of the vote. 96% of his voting constituents gave their express consent for his actions, and 100% of his non-voting constituents gave their implied consent by not objecting to his actions by voting against him.
So to sum it up, OP, people have an obligation--not a "right," not an "ability," and not an "option," but an obligation--to object when the terms of the contract they agreed to with the government and each other is being violated. The vast majority of the U.S. does not object, and in fact, many of them very vocally agree with this violation. You are living in a country ruled by the will of the majority, and an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens are completely fine with the redistribution of wealth, as evidenced by their continued express and implied consent to said redistribution, regardless of whatever grumblings they make in public. There are numerous remedies available to enforce the Constitution, and they are not being used because most people really don't care that the Constitution is being brushed aside for this particular affair. The few that do honestly object and take steps to enforce the Constitution will always be hopelessly outnumbered, as they are an extreme minority. I haven't heard even the most extreme, hardliner libertarians advocating a country where the popularly-elected government and its people cower before the dictates of the minority.
