Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[dcraelin]

To Kaz and the Op............I agree that we have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution. The enumerated the powers because they feared a strong Federal Government. In the Federalist papers they over and over again Warn us about the situation we are in today and stressed as local as possible in Government, which is why they reserved most of the powers to the States. To the poster that said the Federalist Papers mean nothing, I would remind that poster that they were published to explain the INTENT of the Constitution to get it ratified. Written by those who helped write it..................So, those papers show the intent of the Constitution whether you like it or not.Our country has moved to a Strong Central Gov't. Evaporation of State's Rights, and we are now more a pure Democracy than a Republic. The Founders Warned about this and specified Greece. Where Greece allowed Career politicians to rule the roost and were corrupt as hell, even to the point of taken gold from their enemies in the end.
A temporary Simple Majority has time and time again proven why they created Checks and Balances to PREVENT THE TYRANNY OF the Majority. aka 51% can force their views down the other 49% who disagree at a specific time.
We are in a mountain of debt with unfunded liabilities out the ass. We are paying over 400 Billion a year on interest on the debt....425 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE.............We are approaching the 100% of the GDP debt from living and spending beyond our means. And countries are trying to ditch the dollar.
And people here still don't get it...........Ignore it, and hope we don't implode while they are around. It's like a drug addict that wants another fix before it kills him tomorrow and it is insane.

You are so wrong on what the federalists ( the "founders") wanted. They were the big government advocates of their day. As I've said before in here Hamilton was a hypocrite....arguing against a Bill of Rights but then saying Constitution did not prevent setting up a National Bank. Republicanism was a rallying point for those AGAINST the Constitution. Reading the Federalist papaers you can catch the defensiveness of the authors when it comes to this point. Hamilton trashes most republics in Federalist #9.

 

[dblack]

To Kaz and the Op............I agree that we have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution. The enumerated the powers because they feared a strong Federal Government. In the Federalist papers they over and over again Warn us about the situation we are in today and stressed as local as possible in Government, which is why they reserved most of the powers to the States. To the poster that said the Federalist Papers mean nothing, I would remind that poster that they were published to explain the INTENT of the Constitution to get it ratified. Written by those who helped write it..................So, those papers show the intent of the Constitution whether you like it or not.Our country has moved to a Strong Central Gov't. Evaporation of State's Rights, and we are now more a pure Democracy than a Republic. The Founders Warned about this and specified Greece. Where Greece allowed Career politicians to rule the roost and were corrupt as hell, even to the point of taken gold from their enemies in the end.
A temporary Simple Majority has time and time again proven why they created Checks and Balances to PREVENT THE TYRANNY OF the Majority. aka 51% can force their views down the other 49% who disagree at a specific time.
We are in a mountain of debt with unfunded liabilities out the ass. We are paying over 400 Billion a year on interest on the debt....425 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE.............We are approaching the 100% of the GDP debt from living and spending beyond our means. And countries are trying to ditch the dollar.
And people here still don't get it...........Ignore it, and hope we don't implode while they are around. It's like a drug addict that wants another fix before it kills him tomorrow and it is insane.

You are so wrong on what the federalists ( the "founders") wanted. They were the big government advocates of their day. As I've said before in here Hamilton was a hypocrite....arguing against a Bill of Rights but then saying Constitution did not prevent setting up a National Bank. Republicanism was a rallying point for those AGAINST the Constitution. Reading the Federalist papaers you can catch the defensiveness of the authors when it comes to this point. Hamilton trashes most republics in Federalist #9.

Hamilton was indeed a hypocrite, or perhaps a turncoat. In any case, he ended up exploiting many of the same ambiguities he denied in the federalist papers, when it suited his desires to create a mercantilist empire. In other words, he was the nations first sell-out to the banksters.

 

[eagle1462010]

To Kaz and the Op............I agree that we have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution. The enumerated the powers because they feared a strong Federal Government. In the Federalist papers they over and over again Warn us about the situation we are in today and stressed as local as possible in Government, which is why they reserved most of the powers to the States. To the poster that said the Federalist Papers mean nothing, I would remind that poster that they were published to explain the INTENT of the Constitution to get it ratified. Written by those who helped write it..................So, those papers show the intent of the Constitution whether you like it or not.Our country has moved to a Strong Central Gov't. Evaporation of State's Rights, and we are now more a pure Democracy than a Republic. The Founders Warned about this and specified Greece. Where Greece allowed Career politicians to rule the roost and were corrupt as hell, even to the point of taken gold from their enemies in the end.
A temporary Simple Majority has time and time again proven why they created Checks and Balances to PREVENT THE TYRANNY OF the Majority. aka 51% can force their views down the other 49% who disagree at a specific time.
We are in a mountain of debt with unfunded liabilities out the ass. We are paying over 400 Billion a year on interest on the debt....425 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE.............We are approaching the 100% of the GDP debt from living and spending beyond our means. And countries are trying to ditch the dollar.
And people here still don't get it...........Ignore it, and hope we don't implode while they are around. It's like a drug addict that wants another fix before it kills him tomorrow and it is insane.

You are so wrong on what the federalists ( the "founders") wanted. They were the big government advocates of their day. As I've said before in here Hamilton was a hypocrite....arguing against a Bill of Rights but then saying Constitution did not prevent setting up a National Bank. Republicanism was a rallying point for those AGAINST the Constitution. Reading the Federalist papaers you can catch the defensiveness of the authors when it comes to this point. Hamilton trashes most republics in Federalist #9.

We will disagree. Madison and Hamilton were not of the same mindset, but the Constitution ratified was a Great Compromise in the end. Either way the final draft enumerated the powers and the reasons why were posted in the Federalist papers.

Pure Democracies fail. And when the people find they can loot the treasury it is the beginning of the end of a Republic. The Federalist papers say as much.

Either way we are economically in decline and have hit the gas pedal instead of the break. As far as the Founding Fathers intent, We'll DISAGREE.

 

[eagle1462010]

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"

What makes you think the 16th allows for a progressive tax. Where is the language in it that says congress can treat one dollar differently than another? Seems that would violate the equal protection guaranteed elsewhere.

Dollars do not have Constitutional rights

Dollars are individual pieces of property, hence the individual serial number. Where does the 16th say one piece of property can be treated differently than the rest just because of where it happens to fall in a stack. Come on, quote it.

Property does not have rights

The people who own the property have rights, now try to deny that.

Of course they do.
You are subject to the same tax structure as everyone else. Your first dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's

Really, then why are there people who pay zero income taxes and still get money back, they won't let me do that, so no, not all dollars are taxed the same. No one with an income should be able to avoid all income taxes and get a welfare check on top of it. That way, as slow Joe says, everyone would have skin in the game.

You're stupid, but I suppose that's not your fault. I have no problem with citizens receiving aid from the government, even morons like you. I pay my taxes, and don't need or care that I don't need or receive government aid. But I'm a Christian, not a callous conservative like assholes like you.

NO ONE should receive a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes over the year. Come on now, that is just insane.

Really, so they should rely on local and federal aid, in fact subsidizing their employer who exploits them? You're really not very bright, are you?

Is exploitation not actionable?

You're stupid, but I suppose that is your fault. No one can be born that bad off.

Do any of you really think the authors of the constitution granted Congress the power to levy taxes so they could fine people who don't buy health insurance? Or reward people who invest in solar heating? Or any of the other thousands of spurious incentives and surcharges that make up our insane tax code???

There were dozens of authors, or signers, of the Constitution, and I doubt they spoke with one mind; nor were they prescient and foresaw a nation of 300 million diverse individuals and governments with the military power to end life on earth.

Our Constitution is a unique document, but it is not one written by those able to see far into the future: They were not able to see medicine with the capabilities of today; travel across continents in less than a day or weapons capable of mass murder. To limit government authority7 to the world of the 18th Century is ridiculous, and yet, that is exactly what the New Right hopes to do.

As you favor a strong Gov't because you need your diapers changed is your problem and not mind. Perhaps you can buy your own depends from now on.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There were dozens of authors, or signers, of the Constitution, and I doubt they spoke with one mind; nor were they prescient and foresaw a nation of 300 million diverse individuals and governments with the military power to end life on earth.

Our Constitution is a unique document, but it is not one written by those able to see far into the future: They were not able to see medicine with the capabilities of today; travel across continents in less than a day or weapons capable of mass murder. To limit government authority to the world of the 18th Century is ridiculous, and yet, that is exactly what the New Right hopes to do.

 

[eagle1462010]

Bottom line.

Emotions don't pay the bills, and Libs rule by emotion. We can't keep paying out these vast budgets without destroying ourselves via the economy, and they refuse to cut or budge.

 

[dcraelin]

To Kaz and the Op............I agree that we have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution. The enumerated the powers because they feared a strong Federal Government. In the Federalist papers they over and over again Warn us about the situation we are in today and stressed as local as possible in Government, which is why they reserved most of the powers to the States. To the poster that said the Federalist Papers mean nothing, I would remind that poster that they were published to explain the INTENT of the Constitution to get it ratified. Written by those who helped write it..................So, those papers show the intent of the Constitution whether you like it or not.Our country has moved to a Strong Central Gov't. Evaporation of State's Rights, and we are now more a pure Democracy than a Republic. The Founders Warned about this and specified Greece. Where Greece allowed Career politicians to rule the roost and were corrupt as hell, even to the point of taken gold from their enemies in the end.
A temporary Simple Majority has time and time again proven why they created Checks and Balances to PREVENT THE TYRANNY OF the Majority. aka 51% can force their views down the other 49% who disagree at a specific time.
We are in a mountain of debt with unfunded liabilities out the ass. We are paying over 400 Billion a year on interest on the debt....425 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE.............We are approaching the 100% of the GDP debt from living and spending beyond our means. And countries are trying to ditch the dollar.
And people here still don't get it...........Ignore it, and hope we don't implode while they are around. It's like a drug addict that wants another fix before it kills him tomorrow and it is insane.

You are so wrong on what the federalists ( the "founders") wanted. They were the big government advocates of their day. As I've said before in here Hamilton was a hypocrite....arguing against a Bill of Rights but then saying Constitution did not prevent setting up a National Bank. Republicanism was a rallying point for those AGAINST the Constitution. Reading the Federalist papaers you can catch the defensiveness of the authors when it comes to this point. Hamilton trashes most republics in Federalist #9.

We will disagree. Madison and Hamilton were not of the same mindset, but the Constitution ratified was a Great Compromise in the end. Either way the final draft enumerated the powers and the reasons why were posted in the Federalist papers.
Pure Democracies fail. And when the people find they can loot the treasury it is the beginning of the end of a Republic. The Federalist papers say as much.Either way we are economically in decline and have hit the gas pedal instead of the break. As far as the Founding Fathers intent, We'll DISAGREE.

Yes we will disagree. The Swiss have had direct lawmaking options for 100s of years and are doing quite well. Republic is really just the Latin term for Democracy.

 

[eagle1462010]

To Kaz and the Op............I agree that we have strayed away from the original intent of the Constitution. The enumerated the powers because they feared a strong Federal Government. In the Federalist papers they over and over again Warn us about the situation we are in today and stressed as local as possible in Government, which is why they reserved most of the powers to the States. To the poster that said the Federalist Papers mean nothing, I would remind that poster that they were published to explain the INTENT of the Constitution to get it ratified. Written by those who helped write it..................So, those papers show the intent of the Constitution whether you like it or not.Our country has moved to a Strong Central Gov't. Evaporation of State's Rights, and we are now more a pure Democracy than a Republic. The Founders Warned about this and specified Greece. Where Greece allowed Career politicians to rule the roost and were corrupt as hell, even to the point of taken gold from their enemies in the end.
A temporary Simple Majority has time and time again proven why they created Checks and Balances to PREVENT THE TYRANNY OF the Majority. aka 51% can force their views down the other 49% who disagree at a specific time.
We are in a mountain of debt with unfunded liabilities out the ass. We are paying over 400 Billion a year on interest on the debt....425 BILLION LAST YEAR ALONE.............We are approaching the 100% of the GDP debt from living and spending beyond our means. And countries are trying to ditch the dollar.
And people here still don't get it...........Ignore it, and hope we don't implode while they are around. It's like a drug addict that wants another fix before it kills him tomorrow and it is insane.

You are so wrong on what the federalists ( the "founders") wanted. They were the big government advocates of their day. As I've said before in here Hamilton was a hypocrite....arguing against a Bill of Rights but then saying Constitution did not prevent setting up a National Bank. Republicanism was a rallying point for those AGAINST the Constitution. Reading the Federalist papaers you can catch the defensiveness of the authors when it comes to this point. Hamilton trashes most republics in Federalist #9.

We will disagree. Madison and Hamilton were not of the same mindset, but the Constitution ratified was a Great Compromise in the end. Either way the final draft enumerated the powers and the reasons why were posted in the Federalist papers.
Pure Democracies fail. And when the people find they can loot the treasury it is the beginning of the end of a Republic. The Federalist papers say as much.Either way we are economically in decline and have hit the gas pedal instead of the break. As far as the Founding Fathers intent, We'll DISAGREE.

Yes we will disagree. The Swiss have had direct lawmaking options for 100s of years and are doing quite well. Republic is really just the Latin term for Democracy.

Wrong. A Republic is a system of checks and balances against a Pure Democracy. A pure Democracy can allow a temp or very small majority to order the almost equal number of people to Do as they say. Which is why they created a Senate, and why they gave that power to the states.................Taken away by the Communist punk Wilson.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bottom line.

Emotions don't pay the bills, and Libs rule by emotion. We can't keep paying out these vast budgets without destroying ourselves via the economy, and they refuse to cut or budge.

There were dozens of authors, or signers, of the Constitution, and I doubt they spoke with one mind; nor were they prescient and foresaw a nation of 300 million diverse individuals and governments with the military power to end life on earth.
Our Constitution is a unique document, but it is not one written by those able to see far into the future: They were not able to see medicine with the capabilities of today; travel across continents in less than a day or weapons capable of mass murder. To limit government authority to the world of the 18th Century is ridiculous, and yet, that is exactly what the New Right hopes to do.

 

[Dad2three]

None of your founding fathers listed had wills or transferred wealth to family huh dad2three?

Pretty long history of estate transfers, now you think that should all end? Your greed knows no bounds.

Weird, yet they supported getting rid of the aristocracy the conservatives/libertarians want oi take US back too

 

[dblack]

None of your founding fathers listed had wills or transferred wealth to family huh dad2three?

Pretty long history of estate transfers, now you think that should all end? Your greed knows no bounds.

Weird, yet they supported getting rid of the aristocracy the conservatives/libertarians want oi take US back too

It's fairly remarkable how well your views are represented by your avi.

 

[dcraelin]

You are so wrong on what the federalists ( the "founders") wanted. They were the big government advocates of their day. As I've said before in here Hamilton was a hypocrite....arguing against a Bill of Rights but then saying Constitution did not prevent setting up a National Bank. Republicanism was a rallying point for those AGAINST the Constitution. Reading the Federalist papaers you can catch the defensiveness of the authors when it comes to this point. Hamilton trashes most republics in Federalist #9.

We will disagree. Madison and Hamilton were not of the same mindset, but the Constitution ratified was a Great Compromise in the end. Either way the final draft enumerated the powers and the reasons why were posted in the Federalist papers.Pure Democracies fail. And when the people find they can loot the treasury it is the beginning of the end of a Republic. The Federalist papers say as much.Either way we are economically in decline and have hit the gas pedal instead of the break. As far as the Founding Fathers intent, We'll DISAGREE.

Yes we will disagree. The Swiss have had direct lawmaking options for 100s of years and are doing quite well. Republic is really just the Latin term for Democracy.

Wrong. A Republic is a system of checks and balances against a Pure Democracy. A pure Democracy can allow a temp or very small majority to order the almost equal number of people to Do as they say. Which is why they created a Senate, and why they gave that power to the states.................Taken away by the Communist punk Wilson.

NO that is not the definition of a Republic..........like I said read Federalist #9 to see how Hamilton hated most peoples idea of what a Republic was.....Some of the framers may indeed have wanted a system of checks against the people...against Republicanism..against Democracy.........They TOOK power from the states BTW.

 

[eagle1462010]

You are so wrong on what the federalists ( the "founders") wanted. They were the big government advocates of their day. As I've said before in here Hamilton was a hypocrite....arguing against a Bill of Rights but then saying Constitution did not prevent setting up a National Bank. Republicanism was a rallying point for those AGAINST the Constitution. Reading the Federalist papaers you can catch the defensiveness of the authors when it comes to this point. Hamilton trashes most republics in Federalist #9.

We will disagree. Madison and Hamilton were not of the same mindset, but the Constitution ratified was a Great Compromise in the end. Either way the final draft enumerated the powers and the reasons why were posted in the Federalist papers.Pure Democracies fail. And when the people find they can loot the treasury it is the beginning of the end of a Republic. The Federalist papers say as much.Either way we are economically in decline and have hit the gas pedal instead of the break. As far as the Founding Fathers intent, We'll DISAGREE.

Yes we will disagree. The Swiss have had direct lawmaking options for 100s of years and are doing quite well. Republic is really just the Latin term for Democracy.

Wrong. A Republic is a system of checks and balances against a Pure Democracy. A pure Democracy can allow a temp or very small majority to order the almost equal number of people to Do as they say. Which is why they created a Senate, and why they gave that power to the states.................Taken away by the Communist punk Wilson.

NO that is not the definition of a Republic..........like I said read Federalist #9 to see how Hamilton hated most peoples idea of what a Republic was.....Some of the framers may indeed have wanted a system of checks against the people...against Republicanism..against Democracy.........They TOOK power from the states BTW.

And our country has taken more power from the states over time as well. Giving us a more and more powerful central Gov't over time. Now they pretty much create a law to give out money anyway the damn well please, with Career politicians hooking up their buddies to the point of what happened in Ancient Greece, and Current Greece as well.

We need a limited Gov't because we can't afford a large Gov't. What do we say when the interest on the debt is as high as the DOD budget..........

We'll fix it tomorrow.....and tomorrow..........It's ludicrous to continue down our current path.

 

[Dad2three]

I dont think the anti-federalists were the sheeple. The federalists I think were in large part the wolves. RI was basically coerced into the Constitution under threat of blockade. We would not have a bill of rights if it wasnt for the opposition to the Constitution by folks such as PatrickHenry. .....But part of the problem we have in interpretation of the constitution is that the Bill of Rights and other amendments were basically at odds with the original un-amended Constitution. That is part of the problem I think with the understanding of the General Welfare clause.

The federalists were all for handing out political favors......and the first "breaking" of the understanding of general welfare I believe was for a national bank......so if those on the board here are complaining about redistribution not being constitutional they can blame the federalist backers of a national bank. If its ok for the bankers I dont think we should complain so much about welfare recipients.

Sorry, the VAST majority of sheeple then and now are conservatives. Conservatives fought EVERYTHING that made US great. They and their policy NEVER works ANYWHERE it's EVER been tried, the Articles were a perfect example of that


Yes, there was coercion, lying, payoffs, just like in today's politics

The US Prez from Washington to perhaps the worst Prez pre Dubya, Andy Jackson, expanded federal powers, some GREATLY

The problem with conservatives, especially libertarians, it's ALL black and white thinking based on myths, fairy tales and lies


-

 

[eagle1462010]

Republican Government John Adams Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States

. It signified a government, in which the property of the public, or people, and of every one of them, was secured and protected by law. This idea, indeed, implies liberty; because property cannot be secure unless the man be at liberty to acquire, use, or part with it, at his discretion, and unless he have his personal liberty of life and limb, motion and rest, for that purpose. It implies, moreover, that the property and liberty of all men, not merely of a majority, should be safe; for the people, or public, comprehends more than a majority, it comprehends all and every individual; and the property of every citizen is a part of the public property, as each citizen is a part of the public, people, or community.

Adams........................

When you take from me via taxation and give it to someone else who you deem worthy of Federal Assistance are you depriving me of my property, my income, to someone you deem I should give to without my consent............................

aka I have to pay for my cell phone, so why should I pay for someone else's. Why should I pay for condoms when they should have to pay for them themselves. Why should I pay for a farm that is idle...............Payment for not farming. etc..............

 

[saveliberty]

None of your founding fathers listed had wills or transferred wealth to family huh dad2three?

Pretty long history of estate transfers, now you think that should all end? Your greed knows no bounds.

Weird, yet they supported getting rid of the aristocracy the conservatives/libertarians want oi take US back too

Deflection is not your friend.

 

[Dad2three]

In my opinon the US would be a better nation under kaz's view. People in real need would be provided for by their neighbors and friends, and family. Creating stronger bonds between people and not government. Providing specific help that returns the person to independence.

More right wing crap without ANY honesty or reflection of the way it was WHEN the US didn't have strong safety nets and good Gov't policy to 'spread the wealth'

HOW DID THE US DO USING YOUR 'METHOD' DURING THE GREAT RECESSIONS AND DEPRESSIONS OF THE 1800'S? HOW ABOUT THE GOP GREAT DEPRESSION PRE WELFARE? lol



IF your (and Kaz) philosophy is so good,m why can't you point to ONE nation to EVER use it? And no, the US never did, from day one the US had heavy protectionists policies, an interest in and direction of the US economy (like the Founders wanted) and STRONG federal Gov't

 

[eagle1462010]

In my opinon the US would be a better nation under kaz's view. People in real need would be provided for by their neighbors and friends, and family. Creating stronger bonds between people and not government. Providing specific help that returns the person to independence.

More right wing crap without ANY honesty or reflection of the way it was WHEN the US didn't have strong safety nets and good Gov't policy to 'spread the wealth'

HOW DID THE US DO USING YOUR 'METHOD' DURING THE GREAT RECESSIONS AND DEPRESSIONS OF THE 1800'S? HOW ABOUT THE GOP GREAT DEPRESSION PRE WELFARE? lol



IF your (and Kaz) philosophy is so good,m why can't you point to ONE nation to EVER use it? And no, the US never did, from day one the US had heavy protectionists policies, an interest in and direction of the US economy (like the Founders wanted) and STRONG federal Gov't

LOL

It was Gov't incompetence that has caused all the Depressions, by Not Doing their JOB. Not regulating commerce and cranking out Fiat Currency to inflate markets which screwed everyone.

Andrew Jackson ended the 2nd National Bank of America after the 1st Great Depression because they bloody well caused it, and again after Wilson enabled them, and again after we took away the Glass Steagal Act.......

So, let me get this straight...........Gov't screws up and breaks chit.......and then comes back and says we are here to fix it.....................

Kinda like getting an arsonist to build your house after he burns it down. No thanks.........

 

[Dad2three]

No Country has every tried a Libertarian form of Government, However many countries have tried a socialist/Communist and all have failed.

Weird how Germany, US, Sweden, UK,Japan, ALL forms of socialistic societies are around right?

Why haven't there been a libertarian society again? Oh right you Klowns believe in myths and fairy tales

 

[saveliberty]

Aristocracy is going to have a bit of a problem with one man one vote.