Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[boedicca]

I did the work



We are fiscally conservative, but you call us "conservatives" not "fiscal conservatives." Why is that? I would have no problem with the latter. I have no problem with the former, I just think it shows how disingenuous you are. When pressed, you say you say the former because of fiscal conservatism. But you do it because you want to connect us with socons and neocons, which we are not.

On the other hand, calling is "libertarians" or "fiscal conservatives" provides no false connotation. They are accurate. Which is why you won't use them.

Perhaps BECAUSE you are NOT fiscal conservatives, but right wing wrack jobs who have no problem denying Gov't funds to run Gov't?


ALL you believe in is myths and fairy tales and can NEVER point to ANY society EVER using your policies. Weird



THEN IT'S THE ENTIRE THING OF VOTING AND SUPPORTING THE GOPers..lol

LOL, what a waste of humanity you are. Tell me again how Republicans are black and white, but you're smart, you can see shades of grey. LOL, what a tool.

Oh, he sees shades of grey all right...he's in a perpetual fog of ignorance.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Hi, just dropping in again for a minute.

It looks like the thread has been successfully diverted from its original topic (Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?). I don't blame the liberals from shying away, since the original topic pointed out that their entire agenda is unconstitutional, and they were unable to refute it. But I wonder why various not-so-liberals went along with the diversion, discussing whatever new topic the leftist fanatics introduced.

What's the topic now?

 

[Little-Acorn]

As a reminder:

I see the big-govt pushers keep trying to ignore the part of the Constitution that forbids their attempts to buy votes by redistributing wealth.

Redistributing wealth, as described in the OP, has two parts, of course:

1.) Taking money from one person,
2.) Giving that money directly to another person.

The first is taxation, which the Fed govt clearly has the power to do.

The second is spending, which the Constitution explicitly restricts to programs that will help all Americans equally (see the so-called "Welfare Clause"). Handing money directly to one person or group, blatantly violates that restriction.

It is flatly unconstitutional for the Fed govt to redistribute wealth. Despite the number of times the liberals desperately try to pretend that if the first is legal, then the second must also be legal.

 

[Skylar]

Hi, just dropping in again for a minute.

It looks like the thread has been successfully diverted from its original topic (Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?). I don't blame the liberals from shying away, since the original topic pointed out that their entire agenda is unconstitutional, and they were unable to refute it. But I wonder why various not-so-liberals went along with the diversion, discussing whatever new topic the leftist fanatics introduced.

What's the topic now?

Unconstitutional according to ....who? See, this is the problem with most 'is this constitutional' arguments. Is that many folks define 'constitutional' by their own personal interpretations of the constitution. But the body delegated authority over all cases that arise under the constitution isn't any random citizen. Its the federal judiciary. And judicial review of the constitutionality of a given law was something the judiciary was supposed to have. Recognized by both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, for those interested in legal theory. And centuries of practice for those interested in practical reality.

So the question in any practical sense is 'is it constitutional per precedent established by the federal judiciary on what the constitution is supposed to mean'. And that depends on how you define 'redistribution of wealth'.

 

[dblack]

Hi, just dropping in again for a minute.

It looks like the thread has been successfully diverted from its original topic (Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?). I don't blame the liberals from shying away, since the original topic pointed out that their entire agenda is unconstitutional, and they were unable to refute it. But I wonder why various not-so-liberals went along with the diversion, discussing whatever new topic the leftist fanatics introduced.

What's the topic now?

Unconstitutional according to ....who? See, this is the problem with most 'is this constitutional' arguments. Is that many folks define 'constitutional' by their own personal interpretations of the constitution. But the body delegated authority over all cases that arise under the constitution isn't any random citizen. Its the federal judiciary. And judicial review of the constitutionality of a given law was something the judiciary was supposed to have. Recognized by both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, for those interested in legal theory. And centuries of practice for those interested in practical reality.

So the question in any practical sense is 'is it constitutional per precedent established by the federal judiciary on what the constitution is supposed to mean'. And that depends on how you define 'redistribution of wealth'.

The whole point of discussions like this is to express our opinions. What's yours? Do you think the Court is infallible?

 

[Skylar]

As a reminder:

I see the big-govt pushers keep trying to ignore the part of the Constitution that forbids their attempts to buy votes by redistributing wealth.

Redistributing wealth, as described in the OP, has two parts, of course:

1.) Taking money from one person,
2.) Giving that money directly to another person.

The first is taxation, which the Fed govt clearly has the power to do.

The second is spending, which the Constitution explicitly restricts to programs that will help all Americans equally (see the so-called "Welfare Clause"). Handing money directly to one person or group, blatantly violates that restriction.

I don't think 'explicitly' means what you think it means. As the constitution says no such thing. Here's the Welfare Clause:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

US Constitution

No where does it even mention that the spending is restricted to programs that will help all Americans equally. Let alone 'explicitly' state this. That's certainly your interpretation. But the courts don't hold that interpretation to be valid. Instead, they've taken a rather broad 'Hamiltonian' interpretation of the general welfare clause.

It is flatly unconstitutional for the Fed govt to redistribute wealth. Despite the number of times the liberals desperately try to pretend that if the first is legal, then the second must also be legal.

You're missing a step in the two step process. You define redistributing wealth as taking money from one person and giving that money to another. But the government does give 'that money' to any particular person. It goes into a general fund and belongs to the US government. The Federal Government distributes the Federal Government's money. Not any individual's.

And the Federal Government absolutely has the authority to spend its own money.

 

[dblack]

No where does it even mention that the spending is restricted to programs that will help all Americans equally. Let alone 'explicitly' state this. That's certainly your interpretation. But the courts don't hold that interpretation to be valid. Instead, they've taken a rather broad 'Hamiltonian' interpretation of the general welfare clause.

Wait a minute. Which Hamilton are we talking about? The one who derided the idea that the taxation power could be interpreted as a broad general power (before the C was ratified?), or the one who flip-flopped after he decided to sell us out to the banksters?

 

[Skylar]

Hi, just dropping in again for a minute.

It looks like the thread has been successfully diverted from its original topic (Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?). I don't blame the liberals from shying away, since the original topic pointed out that their entire agenda is unconstitutional, and they were unable to refute it. But I wonder why various not-so-liberals went along with the diversion, discussing whatever new topic the leftist fanatics introduced.

What's the topic now?

Unconstitutional according to ....who? See, this is the problem with most 'is this constitutional' arguments. Is that many folks define 'constitutional' by their own personal interpretations of the constitution. But the body delegated authority over all cases that arise under the constitution isn't any random citizen. Its the federal judiciary. And judicial review of the constitutionality of a given law was something the judiciary was supposed to have. Recognized by both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, for those interested in legal theory. And centuries of practice for those interested in practical reality.

So the question in any practical sense is 'is it constitutional per precedent established by the federal judiciary on what the constitution is supposed to mean'. And that depends on how you define 'redistribution of wealth'.

The whole point of discussions like this is to express our opinions. What's yours? Do you think the Court is infallible?

Oh, I understand that. But constitutionality isn't a matter of your opinion. Its a matter of the federal judiciary's. You can agree or disagree with them. But the legal issues remain pristinely unchanged. As the constitution doesn't grant you (or me for that matter) any authority over cases that arise under the constitution.

It does, however, grant the judiciary such authority. And as the federalist papers make clear, judicial review was by design. And centuries of practice back up the concept of stare decisis where current federal rulings are based on past federal rulings. With the authority to intepret the constitution laying in the Federal Judiciary.

These are pretty fundamental points that most of you here have missed entirely. And they are, by far, the most germane to the conversation. As they're the issues most likely to have real world applications.

 

[Skylar]

No where does it even mention that the spending is restricted to programs that will help all Americans equally. Let alone 'explicitly' state this. That's certainly your interpretation. But the courts don't hold that interpretation to be valid. Instead, they've taken a rather broad 'Hamiltonian' interpretation of the general welfare clause.

Wait a minute. Which Hamilton are we talking about? The one who derided the idea that the taxation power could be interpreted as a broad general power (before the C was ratified?), or the one who flip-flopped after he decided to sell us out to the banksters?

Which Hamilton do you think I'm referring to? Its not like there are a lot to choose from in terms of constitutional interpretations.

This would be the Hamilton that advocated the creation of the Bank of the United States after the constitution was ratified and during the first session of the Congress. With Washington and the majority of the founders siding with Hamilton, despite no explicitly enumerated power in the Constitution for them to do so. Kinda putting the kabash on the whole 'what the founders intended' angle of only explicitly enumerated powers.

This would the be the Hamilton that with Madison and Jay wrote the federalist papers. With the Federalist model winning out overwhelmingly in the writing of the new constitution.

This would be the Hamilton that explicitly wrote that the Constitution was to be interpreted by the Judiciary in Federalist Paper 78. And when I say 'explicitly', that means he actually states it rather than the vague 'explicitly' that you made up for the General Welfare Clause.......where there is zero mention of anything you attributed to the Clause.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://theccwr.org/pdfs/D_CRS-Welfare-Spending-Report.pdf

CRS Report: Welfare Spending The Largest Item
In The Federal Budget
Ranking Member Sesions and the minority staf of the Senate Budget Commite requested
from the nonpartisan Congresional Research Service (CRS) an overview of cumulative
means-tested federal welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which
data is available (fiscal year 201). The results are stagering. CRS identified 83 overlaping
federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 201
more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total
amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03
trilion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They
exclude entilement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and
Medicare).

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republ...?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5

The 83 Federal Welfare programs are listed here, and in tables in the pdf already mentioned.

Add in those getting returns with ZERO taxes paid to the Fed and you can add another 200 Billion a year.

That's the real deal, and why we are freaking broke.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Skylar]

http://theccwr.org/pdfs/D_CRS-Welfare-Spending-Report.pdf

CRS Report: Welfare Spending The Largest Item
In The Federal Budget
Ranking Member Sesions and the minority staf of the Senate Budget Commite requested
from the nonpartisan Congresional Research Service (CRS) an overview of cumulative
means-tested federal welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which
data is available (fiscal year 201). The results are stagering. CRS identified 83 overlaping
federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 201
more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total
amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03
trilion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They
exclude entilement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and
Medicare).

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republ...?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5

The 83 Federal Welfare programs are listed here, and in tables in the pdf already mentioned.

Add in those getting returns with ZERO taxes paid to the Fed and you can add another 200 Billion a year.

That's the real deal, and why we are freaking broke.

When you look into the specifics of what they're referring to, it includes programs like WIC..... Federal Work Study and Pell Grants.....Earned Income Tax Credits.....and Medicaid.

Of course students aren't going to be paying federal taxes. They're in college to get better paying jobs later. Earned income tax credits go to virtually anyone with a child. Including those paying federal income tax. And Medicaid is the state version of Medicare...whose primary recipients are *children*. Along withe the majority of WIC recipients.

And trying to condemn children for not paying federal income taxes is a pretty lame argument.

 

[dblack]

Hi, just dropping in again for a minute.

It looks like the thread has been successfully diverted from its original topic (Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?). I don't blame the liberals from shying away, since the original topic pointed out that their entire agenda is unconstitutional, and they were unable to refute it. But I wonder why various not-so-liberals went along with the diversion, discussing whatever new topic the leftist fanatics introduced.

What's the topic now?

Unconstitutional according to ....who? See, this is the problem with most 'is this constitutional' arguments. Is that many folks define 'constitutional' by their own personal interpretations of the constitution. But the body delegated authority over all cases that arise under the constitution isn't any random citizen. Its the federal judiciary. And judicial review of the constitutionality of a given law was something the judiciary was supposed to have. Recognized by both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, for those interested in legal theory. And centuries of practice for those interested in practical reality.

So the question in any practical sense is 'is it constitutional per precedent established by the federal judiciary on what the constitution is supposed to mean'. And that depends on how you define 'redistribution of wealth'.

The whole point of discussions like this is to express our opinions. What's yours? Do you think the Court is infallible?

Oh, I understand that. But constitutionality isn't a matter of your opinion. Its a matter of the federal judiciary's. You can agree or disagree with them. But the legal issues remain pristinely unchanged. As the constitution doesn't grant you (or me for that matter) any authority over cases that arise under the constitution.

It does, however, grant the judiciary such authority. And as the federalist papers make clear, judicial review was by design. And centuries of practice back up the concept of stare decisis where current federal rulings are based on past federal rulings. With the authority to intepret the constitution laying in the Federal Judiciary.

These are pretty fundamental points that most of you here have missed entirely. And they are, by far, the most germane to the conversation. As they're the issues most likely to have real world applications.

Heh... uh, I don't suppose I can speak for everyone, but I'm pretty sure we get the practical reality of the situation - of course the government CAN redistribute wealth, they're doing it every day. And we're all aware the Courts has acquiesced to it. The question we're discussing is whether they were right to do so.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://theccwr.org/pdfs/D_CRS-Welfare-Spending-Report.pdf

CRS Report: Welfare Spending The Largest Item
In The Federal Budget
Ranking Member Sesions and the minority staf of the Senate Budget Commite requested
from the nonpartisan Congresional Research Service (CRS) an overview of cumulative
means-tested federal welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which
data is available (fiscal year 201). The results are stagering. CRS identified 83 overlaping
federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 201
more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total
amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03
trilion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They
exclude entilement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and
Medicare).

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republ...?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5

The 83 Federal Welfare programs are listed here, and in tables in the pdf already mentioned.

Add in those getting returns with ZERO taxes paid to the Fed and you can add another 200 Billion a year.

That's the real deal, and why we are freaking broke.

When you look into the specifics of what they're referring to, it includes programs like WIC..... Federal Work Study and Pell Grants.....Earned Income Tax Credits.....and Medicaid.

Of course students aren't going to be paying federal taxes. They're in college to get better paying jobs later. Earned income tax credits go to virtually anyone with a child. Including those paying federal income tax. And Medicaid is the state version of Medicare...whose primary recipients are *children*. Along withe the majority of WIC recipients.

And trying to condemn children for not paying federal income taxes is a pretty lame argument.

The CRS gave it's criteria for classifying them as welfare budgets. Perhaps you should complain to them.

It is over a Trillion a year for these...........

Children paying income taxes..........LOL....I stated those getting refunds when they pay No Federal Taxes..........LMAO

 

[eagle1462010]

Free Government Cell Phones - 1 Authority on Free Cell Phones

How to get a free government cell phone
The government’s Lifeline Assistance Program gives out free cell phones and monthly service to Americans in need of financial help.







It’s 2014, six years since the great recession, and times are still tough. Among all your other expenses, you might be faced with choosing whether or not you can continue paying for your mobile phone, if you even have one. Cell phones have become a necessary part of your day-to-day survival, and to be without one is unthinkable. But there is help. Did you know that the government has authorized phone companies to provide free cell phones and service to tens of millions Americans at no charge? Yes, it’s true.

Just how much would one of these free government cell phones change your life?

• An employer can more easily reach you with a job offer if you have a free government cell phone.
• You can you stay in touch with your doctor and other emergency medical professionals more easily with a free government cell phone.
• A free government cell phone can help you keep in touch with family and other loved ones.

The government will pay for your free cell phone and service
Thanks to the FCC-mandated, government-sponsored program, called LifeLine Assistance, the financially disadvantaged can receive a free government cell phone and anywhere from 250 to an unlimited number of free minutes and texts every month. Assurance Wireless, in conjunction with theCalifornia Lifeline program, offers an incredible unlimited talk and text plan for free. We see this as a trend that others will follow.

An estimated 12-15 million other Americans already participate, and tens of millions more qualify to enroll today.

 

[saveliberty]

At a minimum, if the government continues to redistribute, they need to hold the programs accountable. This means clear set goals for the outcomes and defunding those that fail.

 

[eagle1462010]

U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

 

[dblack]

Hi, just dropping in again for a minute.

It looks like the thread has been successfully diverted from its original topic (Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?). I don't blame the liberals from shying away, since the original topic pointed out that their entire agenda is unconstitutional, and they were unable to refute it. But I wonder why various not-so-liberals went along with the diversion, discussing whatever new topic the leftist fanatics introduced.

What's the topic now?

Unconstitutional according to ....who? See, this is the problem with most 'is this constitutional' arguments. Is that many folks define 'constitutional' by their own personal interpretations of the constitution. But the body delegated authority over all cases that arise under the constitution isn't any random citizen. Its the federal judiciary. And judicial review of the constitutionality of a given law was something the judiciary was supposed to have. Recognized by both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, for those interested in legal theory. And centuries of practice for those interested in practical reality.

So the question in any practical sense is 'is it constitutional per precedent established by the federal judiciary on what the constitution is supposed to mean'. And that depends on how you define 'redistribution of wealth'.

The whole point of discussions like this is to express our opinions. What's yours? Do you think the Court is infallible?

Oh, I understand that. But constitutionality isn't a matter of your opinion. Its a matter of the federal judiciary's. You can agree or disagree with them. But the legal issues remain pristinely unchanged. As the constitution doesn't grant you (or me for that matter) any authority over cases that arise under the constitution.

It does, however, grant the judiciary such authority. And as the federalist papers make clear, judicial review was by design. And centuries of practice back up the concept of stare decisis where current federal rulings are based on past federal rulings. With the authority to intepret the constitution laying in the Federal Judiciary.

These are pretty fundamental points that most of you here have missed entirely. And they are, by far, the most germane to the conversation. As they're the issues most likely to have real world applications.

Oh good grief. Do you really think we don't get that? Of course the government CAN redistribute wealth. They do it every day. And we're all aware the court has acquiesced to it. The question we're discussing is whether they were right to do so. Does their 'interpretation' of the Constitution bear any resemblance to it's actual meaning? Or is it a convenient conceit to appease power?

If you don't want to discuss it, you don't have to.

 

[eagle1462010]

There is plenty to cut in programs.........like redistribution of wealth programs...........but if anyone wants to cut anything....................................

The LEFT GOES BATSHIT CRAZY..........The sky will begin to fall..........and time will go backwards...........

Then they call you Anarchists....................Because there is never enough programs for them or too small of a Gov't.

It's just what they are.

We should have never went away from the Founding Principles. We can't afford it.

 

[dblack]

No where does it even mention that the spending is restricted to programs that will help all Americans equally. Let alone 'explicitly' state this. That's certainly your interpretation. But the courts don't hold that interpretation to be valid. Instead, they've taken a rather broad 'Hamiltonian' interpretation of the general welfare clause.

Wait a minute. Which Hamilton are we talking about? The one who derided the idea that the taxation power could be interpreted as a broad general power (before the C was ratified?), or the one who flip-flopped after he decided to sell us out to the banksters?

Which Hamilton do you think I'm referring to? Its not like there are a lot to choose from in terms of constitutional interpretations.

This would be the Hamilton that advocated the creation of the Bank of the United States after the constitution was ratified and during the first session of the Congress. With Washington and the majority of the founders siding with Hamilton, despite no explicitly enumerated power in the Constitution for them to do so. Kinda putting the kabash on the whole 'what the founders intended' angle of only explicitly enumerated powers.

This would the be the Hamilton that with Madison and Jay wrote the federalist papers. With the Federalist model winning out overwhelmingly in the writing of the new constitution.

This would be the Hamilton that explicitly wrote that the Constitution was to be interpreted by the Judiciary in Federalist Paper 78. And when I say 'explicitly', that means he actually states it rather than the vague 'explicitly' that you made up for the General Welfare Clause.......where there is zero mention of anything you attributed to the Clause.

No, he sang a distinctly different tune when he was involved in selling the Constitution. He flip-flopped several years later when he decided empire building was more fun.