Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're equivocating. There have always been implied powers in the Constitution, and the "necessary and proper" clause legitimizes them. That's not disputed. What is disputed is the idea that the taxation power represents a broad general power to pass laws spending money in pursuit of the "general welfare"

Again, that too has a long, long pedigree. With Madison lamenting against *exactly* this issue, citing the general welfare as being too broadly defined in his opposition to a law authorizing subsidies to certain fishermen.

The bill passed during the 2nd session of congress. Just like the Bank of the United States passed in the 1st session. The federal subsidies bill was passed only 3 years after the constitution was ratified. Meaning that 'wealth redistribution' as understood here has been going on since nearly the founding of our nation.

And the founders were on board. Hell, it wasn't even the 5th congress when 'The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen' act was passed. Forcing a mandatory tax on all seamen to pay for their medical care. With the federal government creating its own federal hospital system.

These are not new ideas. And they go back to the founding of our nation.

Listen, you can show me rock solid evidence that every single person who helped ratify the Constitution favored a big, interventionist government the day after it was signed, but it won't change the obvious intent. The Constitution is a consent contract between "We the People" and our government. To the extent that that contract has been maligned and evaded, it's invalid. If the current government can't be brought into compliance it's right and proper for "We the People" to revoke that consent.

Your mistake here is to perceive 'the government' as currently being 'big' and 'interventionist,' which it is clearly not.


There is nothing in the Constitution nor its case law that references 'big government,' the Constitution places no limits on the number of Federal agencies that might exist, the number of laws Congress might pass in a given period of time, or the number of persons employed by the Federal government. Acts of Congress and the president are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as a Federal court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)). Federal regulatory policies have been subject to extensive, comprehensive, and rigorous judicial review over several decades and upheld as Constitutional pursuant to the Commerce Clause (see: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), US v. Darby (1941)).


Consequently 'the government' is functioning as intended by the Framers, where nothing has been 'maligned' or 'evaded.'


And citizens remain at liberty to challenge acts of Congress and Federal agencies to determine whether their acts conform with Constitutional case law; indeed, the doctrine of judicial review and the right of the people to challenge acts of government in Federal court have served to safeguard our civil liberties for well over 200 years.


The National government and the people are one in the same, where government acts at the behest of the people, as the people are solely responsible for the government they created:


“A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.”


U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .

 

[dblack]

The National government and the people are one in the same, where government acts at the behest of the people, as the people are solely responsible for the government they created:


“A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.”


U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .

I agree that we are responsible for our government, but it is not identical to us, nor to society. It's that conceit that fuels the "big government" you can't recognize. People who accept the notion that government and "the people" are one in the same fail to make the important distinction between the concerns of government, and the much broader concerns of society. They assume that any problem we face as a society is potentially subject to the coercive power of government.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

 

[regent]

Does the Constitution forbid states from having welfare?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those of you who are anti government ought to consider the consquences if government had a hands off policy. It's foolish to believe, as some of you do, that collecting taxes, using revenue sharing and offering grants to alleviate suffering is not a duty of government. Providing security, food, clothing & shelter when necessary due to man made or natural disasters, and protecting consumers from predators, foreign and domestic, is also a purpose for government, and something anyone of us may need at anytime.

Having or showing keen mental discernment, pragmatic policies and using good judgment - seeking to understand the consequences of any new action or policy - are necessary conditions for good government.-, i.e. a government of, by and for the people.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Nothing requires that programs help all Americans equally.....it is nearly impossible since all Americans have different needs

 

[Votto]

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.

In the late 1800's SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional, so Progs added it to the Constitution some years later.

That was before the Constitution was a living breathing, ever changing, meaningless document, but I digress

 

[Votto]

Madison, the main author of the Constitution said it best.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Consider yourselves subverted America.

 

[Rustic]

Socialist entitlement programs disenfranchise most Americans… Fact

 

[kaz]

Does the Constitution forbid states from having welfare?

No

 

[rightwinger]

Madison, the main author of the Constitution said it best.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Consider yourselves subverted America.

James Madison was a great thinker of the 18th century

But he had no perception of the needs of modern societies or how global economies function. That is why we leave it up to "We the People" to elect those representatives best able to make those decisions

 

[kaz]

Those of you who are anti government ought to consider the consquences if government had a hands off policy. It's foolish to believe, as some of you do, that collecting taxes, using revenue sharing and offering grants to alleviate suffering is not a duty of government. Providing security, food, clothing & shelter when necessary due to man made or natural disasters, and protecting consumers from predators, foreign and domestic, is also a purpose for government, and something anyone of us may need at anytime.

Having or showing keen mental discernment, pragmatic policies and using good judgment - seeking to understand the consequences of any new action or policy - are necessary conditions for good government.-, i.e. a government of, by and for the people.

"good government" is an oxymoron and only a moron would believe otherwise

 

[Votto]

Madison, the main author of the Constitution said it best.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Consider yourselves subverted America.

James Madison was a great thinker of the 18th century

But he had no perception of the needs of modern societies or how global economies function. That is why we leave it up to "We the People" to elect those representatives best able to make those decisions

Right, Madison did not have cell phones and Charman to wipe his ass.

Good point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Madison, the main author of the Constitution said it best.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Consider yourselves subverted America.

Post the link in context! It's not that I doubt your veracity, it's ... well, smart to verify!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those of you who are anti government ought to consider the consquences if government had a hands off policy. It's foolish to believe, as some of you do, that collecting taxes, using revenue sharing and offering grants to alleviate suffering is not a duty of government. Providing security, food, clothing & shelter when necessary due to man made or natural disasters, and protecting consumers from predators, foreign and domestic, is also a purpose for government, and something anyone of us may need at anytime.

Having or showing keen mental discernment, pragmatic policies and using good judgment - seeking to understand the consequences of any new action or policy - are necessary conditions for good government.-, i.e. a government of, by and for the people.

"good government" is an oxymoron and only a moron would believe otherwise

idiot-gram ^^^

Since you seem to hate being governed, why not find a place somewhere on the earth where there are no rules, and no government. I suggest the back country at Yellowstone, and let force be with you, i.e. the wolves or Mr. or Mrs. Grizzly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Madison, the main author of the Constitution said it best.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Consider yourselves subverted America.

James Madison was a great thinker of the 18th century

But he had no perception of the needs of modern societies or how global economies function. That is why we leave it up to "We the People" to elect those representatives best able to make those decisions

Right, Madison did not have cell phones and Charman to wipe his ass.

Good point.

Do you get paid for being a fool?

 

[kaz]

Those of you who are anti government ought to consider the consquences if government had a hands off policy. It's foolish to believe, as some of you do, that collecting taxes, using revenue sharing and offering grants to alleviate suffering is not a duty of government. Providing security, food, clothing & shelter when necessary due to man made or natural disasters, and protecting consumers from predators, foreign and domestic, is also a purpose for government, and something anyone of us may need at anytime.

Having or showing keen mental discernment, pragmatic policies and using good judgment - seeking to understand the consequences of any new action or policy - are necessary conditions for good government.-, i.e. a government of, by and for the people.

"good government" is an oxymoron and only a moron would believe otherwise

idiot-gram ^^^

Since you seem to hate being governed, why not find a place somewhere on the earth where there are no rules, and no government. I suggest the back country at Yellowstone, and let force be with you, i.e. the wolves or Mr. or Mrs. Grizzly.

I'm not a Democrat, so I'm a Republican! No wait, this time I'm an anarchist ... You and stupid go together like Penn & Teller ...

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[owebo]

Does the Constitution forbid states from having welfare?

Federal?

 

[rightwinger]

Madison, the main author of the Constitution said it best.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Consider yourselves subverted America.

James Madison was a great thinker of the 18th century

But he had no perception of the needs of modern societies or how global economies function. That is why we leave it up to "We the People" to elect those representatives best able to make those decisions

Right, Madison did not have cell phones and Charman to wipe his ass.

Good point.

Madison had slaves to wipe his ass