Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[Skylar]

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.

I don't think you're getting what I"m saying. Constitutionality is a legal standard.....not a personal opinion. That standard is the federal judiciary's to check and determine. So on the question of whether or not a particular law is constitutional, the issue is definitely determined by the courts.

I'm not saying that the feds simply 'can' redistribute wealth as you understand it. I'm saying that such actions are legally constitutional as the courts have determined such actions are in accordance with the federal government's power under the constitution. The legal question of constitutionality is answered. And the validity of that determination is utterly autonomous of your agreement or disagreement.

As for its 'actual meaning', that too is for the courts to determine. You said that the welfare clause explicitly restricts the federal government to programs that benefit all Americans equally. But the welfare clause says no such thing. Presumably you interpret some term as meaning 'restricts to programs that benefit all Americans equally'. And that's the 'actual meaning' you apply.

But your 'actual meaning' and the court's 'actual meaning' differ quite significantly. And as mentioned above, the authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution is the court's. Not yours. Meaning that their 'actual meaning' is valid. And yours is merely personal opinion.

And given the founder's actions in the first few sessions of congress, its quite clear they didn't consider their powers restricted to only those explicitly enumerated by the constitution. Madison himself lamented about how the general welfare clause was being used to expand government authority beyond what he thought it should be......less than 3 years after the constitution was ratified. The founders passed the Bank of the United States in the very first session of congress despite no explicitly enumerated power to do so. They passed programs that benefited only specific groups, despite your claim that the constitution prevented it.

So we have both a historic and practical legal contradiction of your assumptions. Where you define nothing, determine the meaning of nothing, adjudicate nothing. And the courts define terms, determine meaning, and adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

Do you hear me now?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Huh. I haven't done any of those things. So will you address the issues I've raised....or continue to lament against a predigested hypothetical response?

As for the going away from the 'Founding Principles', as most of the hard right wing interprets them, this was done in the very first session of congress by the founders themselves.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And by 'several years later', you mean during the very first session of congress?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

I don't think you're getting what I"m saying. Constitutionality is a legal standard.....not a personal opinion. That standard is the federal judiciary's to check and determine. So on the question of whether or not a particular law is constitutional, the issue is definitely determined by the courts.

I'm not saying that the feds simply 'can' redistribute wealth as you understand it. I'm saying that such actions are legally constitutional as the courts have determined such actions are in accordance with the federal government's power under the constitution. The legal question of constitutionality is answered. And the validity of that determination is utterly autonomous of your agreement or disagreement.

As for its 'actual meaning', that too is for the courts to determine. You said that the welfare clause explicitly restricts the federal government to programs that benefit all Americans equally. But the welfare clause says no such thing. Presumably you interpret some term as meaning 'restricts to programs that benefit all Americans equally'. And that's the 'actual meaning' you apply.

But your 'actual meaning' and the court's 'actual meaning' differ quite significantly. And as mentioned above, the authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution is the court's. Not yours. Meaning that their 'actual meaning' is valid. And yours is merely personal opinion.

And given the founder's actions in the first few sessions of congress, its quite clear they didn't consider their powers restricted to only those explicitly enumerated by the constitution. Madison himself lamented about how the general welfare clause was being used to expand government authority beyond what he thought it should be......less than 3 years after the constitution was ratified. The founders passed the Bank of the United States in the very first session of congress despite no explicitly enumerated power to do so. They passed programs that benefited only specific groups, despite your claim that the constitution prevented it.

So we have both a historic and practical legal contradiction of your assumptions. Where you define nothing, determine the meaning of nothing, adjudicate nothing. And the courts define terms, determine meaning, and adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

Do you hear me now?

Courts do not determine meaning, that is interpretation. Courts apply the Constitution. They also have to have a case before them in order to render an opinion. Further, Congress can create a law which will stand until challenged in a court. Judical activism is not the role of the Court.

 

[Skylar]

Courts do not determine meaning, that is interpretation. Courts apply the Constitution. They also have to have a case before them in order to render an opinion. Further, Congress can create a law which will stand until challenged in a court. Judical activism is not the role of the Court.

This is true....they do have to have a case before them. When they render a judgment, they define terms, determine meanings and establish binding precedent. There have been cases in which the issues that some here define as 'wealth redistribution' have been addressed by the courts. The issue of 'constitutionality' has been determined legally and practically. The programs in question are constitutional.

This isn't a personal opinion. This is the legal determination by the body authorized to adjudicate all cases that arise under the constitution: the federal judiciary. And since 'constitutionality' is a legal standard, the question is answered;

Yes.

Judical activism is not the role of the Court.

Interpreting the constitution and adjudicating cases that arise under the constitution are the role of the judiciary. And if they interpret the constitution differently than you do, if they assign a meaning to a term differently than you do, their determination is authoritative. Yours isn't.

Constitutionality is a legal standard. And you don't determine it. The courts do.

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court can reverse a prior decision. Please show me where is says the SCOTUS can interpret. That term is never used in the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court can reverse a prior decision. Please show me where is says the SCOTUS can interpret. That term is never used in the Constitution.

It can reverse a prior decision.

The term 'adjudicate' isn't mentioned either. Nor are they explicitly granted the power to 'rule' on any case. They are granted the 'judicial power' under the Constitution. The founders made it very clear what *they* thought it was;

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton

Even the Anti-Federalists recognized this role for the judiciary under the Federalist constitution:

"The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void

Anti-Federalist Paper No. 78
Robert Yates

Are you going to argue that the judicial power doesn't include adjudication, ruling on cases or interpretation of the constitution? If an issue arises under the constitution, how then can the court rule without the ability to do both?

 

[saveliberty]

The interpretation part was regarding laws, not the Constitution. I submit even in the context Hamilton presents it, it is a poor choice of verbage. Construction, as in applied.

 

[Skylar]

The interpretation part was regarding laws, not the Constitution. I submit even in the context Hamilton presents it, it is a poor choice of verbage. Construction, as in applied.

That's not what the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers on the judicial power say.

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

That's not a misstatement or a 'poor choice of verbiage'. That's his position. And its as clear as a bell. There is no ambiguity whatsoever that Hamilton argued the Constitution was to be interpreted by the courts. That's exactly what he argued. That it was the courts who were to ascertain its meaning.

And Hamilton *explicitly* differentiates between the meaning of the constitution and the meaning of any particular law. Indicating that the courts were to ascertain meaning for BOTH.

You're straight up ignoring what Hamilton said. And what Yates said.

"The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void

Anti-Federalist Paper No. 78
Robert Yates

There's no ambiguity there either. So we have two sources, on opposite sides that express the same view of the court's role in interpreting the constitution. And you ignore them both. Who then is your source that the courts were not to interpret the constitution?

And if the courts have no authority to interpret the constitution.....then how can they *ever* determine the constitutionality of any law?

 

[saveliberty]

I see the word law(s) where you insert Constitution. A failure on your part. How does fundamental law need interpreting?

 

[Skylar]

I see the word law(s) where you insert Constitution. A failure on your part. How does fundamental law need interpreting?

Lets follow your logic. The term 'adjudicate' isn't mentioned either. Nor are they explicitly granted the power to 'rule' on any case. Using your logic, the courts have no authority to adjudicate any case, nor rule on any case, nor interpret the constitution or any law....because the verbs 'adjudicate', 'rule' and 'interpret' aren't explicitly mentioned by the constitution.

If the courts have no power to adjudicate any case, to rule on any case presented to them or interpret anything.......what then is the 'judicial power' granted them by Article III. And remember, you're restricted to your own standards: verbs expressly used in the constitution.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

You might want to check out the 16th amendment. That amendment gives the government the power to tax the people to pay for the governments expenses, debts and upkeep on infrastructure among a lot of other things our tax dollars are spent on.

I will be the first one to say there's way too much waste in our government.

However, I'm pretty sure that conservatives wouldn't agree with what I call waste.

 

[saveliberty]

I see the word law(s) where you insert Constitution. A failure on your part. How does fundamental law need interpreting?

Lets follow your logic. The term 'adjudicate' isn't mentioned either. Nor are they explicitly granted the power to 'rule' on any case. Using your logic, the courts have no authority to adjudicate any case, nor rule on any case, nor interpret the constitution or any law....because the verbs 'adjudicate', 'rule' and 'interpret' aren't explicitly mentioned by the constitution.

If the courts have no power to adjudicate any case, to rule on any case presented to them or interpret anything.......what then is the 'judicial power' granted them by Article III. And remember, you're restricted to your own standards: verbs expressly used in the constitution.

that is pure deflection. Not even a good try at addressing my point. If memory serves, there was a SCOTUS case and the Court used it to establish their "rights". It was a power they granted to themselves.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

You might want to check out the 16th amendment. That amendment gives the government the power to tax the people to pay for the governments expenses, debts and upkeep on infrastructure among a lot of other things our tax dollars are spent on.

I will be the first one to say there's way too much waste in our government.

However, I'm pretty sure that conservatives wouldn't agree with what I call waste.

It was sold to the states as a way to pay war debts. FDR bastardized it.

 

[Skylar]

I see the word law(s) where you insert Constitution. A failure on your part. How does fundamental law need interpreting?

Lets follow your logic. The term 'adjudicate' isn't mentioned either. Nor are they explicitly granted the power to 'rule' on any case. Using your logic, the courts have no authority to adjudicate any case, nor rule on any case, nor interpret the constitution or any law....because the verbs 'adjudicate', 'rule' and 'interpret' aren't explicitly mentioned by the constitution.

If the courts have no power to adjudicate any case, to rule on any case presented to them or interpret anything.......what then is the 'judicial power' granted them by Article III. And remember, you're restricted to your own standards: verbs expressly used in the constitution.

that is pure deflection. Not even a good try at addressing my point. If memory serves, there was a SCOTUS case and the Court used it to establish their "rights". It was a power they granted to themselves.

Not, its a demonstration that the constitution doesn't define all of its terms. For example, the 'judicial power'. You can't tell me what it includes. And that is the answer to your question of why fundamental law needs interpreting. Because the terms in question aren't defined.

What's the 'judicial power'? What's the 'general welfare'? What's 'unreasonable' searches and seizures.What's constitutes a 'search'? How many hours, days or months is a 'speedy' trial? To what degree are powers inferred? What's 'cruel and unusual' punishment? What unemumerated rights exist?

And how would the constitutionality of any given law be determined?

With interpretation. With the ascertaining of meaning. And the determination of superior obligation when a given law contradicts the constitution. Exactly as Hamilton described.

And of course, you straight up ignored Hamilton on the role of the judiciary in interpreting the constitution. For no particular reason.

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton

And now refuse to discuss him, his position, or his very obvious and explicit contradiction of your assertions.

You were saying about 'failings'? And of course, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the courts can determine the constitutionality of any law if they have no authority to intepret the constitution and its meaning.

Its becoming increasingly obvious you have no answer. Just as you have no reason to ignore the Federalist Papers on the role of the judiciary save that he contradicts you.

 

[dblack]

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.

I don't think you're getting what I"m saying. Constitutionality is a legal standard.....not a personal opinion. That standard is the federal judiciary's to check and determine. So on the question of whether or not a particular law is constitutional, the issue is definitely determined by the courts.

I'm not saying that the feds simply 'can' redistribute wealth as you understand it. I'm saying that such actions are legally constitutional as the courts have determined such actions are in accordance with the federal government's power under the constitution. The legal question of constitutionality is answered. And the validity of that determination is utterly autonomous of your agreement or disagreement.

As for its 'actual meaning', that too is for the courts to determine. You said that the welfare clause explicitly restricts the federal government to programs that benefit all Americans equally. But the welfare clause says no such thing. Presumably you interpret some term as meaning 'restricts to programs that benefit all Americans equally'. And that's the 'actual meaning' you apply.

But your 'actual meaning' and the court's 'actual meaning' differ quite significantly. And as mentioned above, the authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution is the court's. Not yours. Meaning that their 'actual meaning' is valid. And yours is merely personal opinion.

And given the founder's actions in the first few sessions of congress, its quite clear they didn't consider their powers restricted to only those explicitly enumerated by the constitution. Madison himself lamented about how the general welfare clause was being used to expand government authority beyond what he thought it should be......less than 3 years after the constitution was ratified. The founders passed the Bank of the United States in the very first session of congress despite no explicitly enumerated power to do so. They passed programs that benefited only specific groups, despite your claim that the constitution prevented it.

So we have both a historic and practical legal contradiction of your assumptions. Where you define nothing, determine the meaning of nothing, adjudicate nothing. And the courts define terms, determine meaning, and adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

Do you hear me now?

I guess. You seem to be of the opinion the Court is infallible. I don't share your faith.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I don't think you're getting what I"m saying. Constitutionality is a legal standard.....not a personal opinion. That standard is the federal judiciary's to check and determine. So on the question of whether or not a particular law is constitutional, the issue is definitely determined by the courts.

I'm not saying that the feds simply 'can' redistribute wealth as you understand it. I'm saying that such actions are legally constitutional as the courts have determined such actions are in accordance with the federal government's power under the constitution. The legal question of constitutionality is answered. And the validity of that determination is utterly autonomous of your agreement or disagreement.

As for its 'actual meaning', that too is for the courts to determine. You said that the welfare clause explicitly restricts the federal government to programs that benefit all Americans equally. But the welfare clause says no such thing. Presumably you interpret some term as meaning 'restricts to programs that benefit all Americans equally'. And that's the 'actual meaning' you apply.

But your 'actual meaning' and the court's 'actual meaning' differ quite significantly. And as mentioned above, the authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution is the court's. Not yours. Meaning that their 'actual meaning' is valid. And yours is merely personal opinion.

And given the founder's actions in the first few sessions of congress, its quite clear they didn't consider their powers restricted to only those explicitly enumerated by the constitution. Madison himself lamented about how the general welfare clause was being used to expand government authority beyond what he thought it should be......less than 3 years after the constitution was ratified. The founders passed the Bank of the United States in the very first session of congress despite no explicitly enumerated power to do so. They passed programs that benefited only specific groups, despite your claim that the constitution prevented it.

So we have both a historic and practical legal contradiction of your assumptions. Where you define nothing, determine the meaning of nothing, adjudicate nothing. And the courts define terms, determine meaning, and adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

Do you hear me now?

I guess. You seem to be of the opinion the Court is infallible. I don't share your faith.

I recognize that the courts can fuck shit up, just like congress can, just like the president can. I'm saying that in the role of determining constitutionality, they are delegated the authority necessary to answer your question.

And the answer is 'yes'.

 

[dblack]

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.

I don't think you're getting what I"m saying. Constitutionality is a legal standard.....not a personal opinion. That standard is the federal judiciary's to check and determine. So on the question of whether or not a particular law is constitutional, the issue is definitely determined by the courts.

I'm not that the feds simply 'can' redistribute wealth as you understand it. I'm saying that such actions are legally constitutional as the courts have determined such actions are in accordance with the federal government's power under the constitution. The legal question of constitutionality is answered. And the validity of that determination is utterly autonomous of your agreement or disagreement.

As for its 'actual meaning', that too is for the courts to determine. You said that the welfare clause explicitly restricts the federal government to programs that benefit all Americans equally. But the welfare clause says no such thing. Presumably you interpret some term as meaning 'restricts to programs that benefit all Americans equally'. And that's the 'actual meaning' you apply.

But your 'actual meaning' and the court's 'actual meaning' differ quite significantly. And as mentioned above, the authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution is the court's. Not yours. Meaning that their 'actual meaning' is valid. And yours is merely personal opinion.

And given the founder's actions in the first few sessions of congress, its quite clear they didn't consider their powers restricted to only those explicitly enumerated by the constitution. Madison himself lamented about how the general welfare clause was being used to expand government authority beyond what he thought it should be......less than 3 years after the constitution was ratified. The founders passed the Bank of the United States in the very first session of congress despite no explicitly enumerated power to do so. They passed programs that benefited only specific groups, despite your claim that the constitution prevented it.

So we have both a historic and practical legal contradiction of your assumptions. Where you define nothing, determine the meaning of nothing, adjudicate nothing. And the courts define terms, determine meaning, and adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

Do you hear me now?

I guess. You seem to be of the opinion the Court is infallible. I don't share your faith.

I recognize that the courts can fuck shit up, just like congress can, just like the president can. I'm saying that in the role of determining constitutionality, they are delegated the authority necessary to answer your question.

And the answer is 'yes'.

Well, that's a nice tight little circle. But the question of the thread isn't who decides. It's what we think the right decision should be. I suppose you're making an appeal to authority, which is fine. But it's sort of irrelevant. Obviously the Courts have ok'ed redistributions - hell they just signed off on insurance mandates. The debate we're having here is whether they made the right call. I think it was a mistake, both in terms of original intent and what's good for the nation.

 

[Skylar]

Well, that's a nice tight little circle. But the question of the thread isn't who has the authority. It's what we think. I suppose you're making an appeal to authority, which is fine. But it's sort of irrelevant. Obviously the Courts have ok'ed redistributions - hell they just signed off on insurance mandatesk. The debate we're having here is whether they made the right call. I think it was a mistake, both in terms of original intent and what's good for the nation.

Its certainly neat, but only because our system of law has some pretty clear heirarchy. My point is simple: constitutionality is a legal standard. So you might as well be asking 'is abortion legal in the US'. The answer is obviously yes. You can argue if it should be. But there's really no debate on whether or not it is.

Likewise, the constitutionality of the 'redistribution' programs is obviously yes. As the courts determine if a given law meets the legal standard of constitutionality. You can argue if it should be. But there's really no debate on whether or not it is.

 

[dblack]

Well, that's a nice tight little circle. But the question of the thread isn't who has the authority. It's what we think. I suppose you're making an appeal to authority, which is fine. But it's sort of irrelevant. Obviously the Courts have ok'ed redistributions - hell they just signed off on insurance mandatesk. The debate we're having here is whether they made the right call. I think it was a mistake, both in terms of original intent and what's good for the nation.

Its certainly neat, but only because our system of law has some pretty clear heirarchy. My point is simple: constitutionality is a legal standard. So you might as well be asking 'is abortion legal in the US'. The answer is obviously yes. You can argue if it should be. But there's really no debate on whether or not it is.

Likewise, the constitutionality of the 'redistribution' programs is obviously yes. As the courts determine if a given law meets the legal standard of constitutionality. You can argue if it should be. But there's really no debate on whether or not it is.

Wow... you are utterly fixated on this. Granted, the language of the thread title lacks precision, but it's pretty obvious (to most of us) that the question isn't whether it's considered constitutional by the Court, but whether we think it's constitutional.