Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[eagle1462010]

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

As did much of the world back then............so your quote is historically correct..........but it does not take into account the historical context of the time period nor does it change the nature of the Constitution..............

If you are concerned with Slavery..........it exists today in the Middle East as they buy and sell people from other parts of the world........to work for them and become their sex slaves........places like Iran and Saudi Arabia................where is your concern for them now..............

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes; providing for the common Defense and general Welfare, requires redistribution of income.

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes; providing for the common Defense and general Welfare, requires redistribution of income.

You're an idiot, the military isn't redistribution of income

 

[Little-Acorn]

Does the Constitution forbid states from having welfare?

Nope. Just the Federal govt.

States that want to hand out Welfare are free to do so.

Of course, people who need (or want) the free money could start moving to the states that give out the most. And those states would find their rolls swelling hugely, with their budgets going bankrupt with the number of new Welfare cases they find within their borders. The situation tends to be self-limiting.

Only by forcing everyone to participate, can they prevent that situation. And they would need the Fed govt to do it, to get that. Which is exactly why the Constitution forbids it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes; providing for the common Defense and general Welfare, requires redistribution of income.

You're an idiot, the military isn't redistribution of income

Projecting much? Our military proves communism works.

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes; providing for the common Defense and general Welfare, requires redistribution of income.

You're an idiot, the military isn't redistribution of income

Projecting much? Our military proves communism works.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes; providing for the common Defense and general Welfare, requires redistribution of income.

You're an idiot, the military isn't redistribution of income

Projecting much? Our military proves communism works.

It is all the right wing has; nothing but comedic fantasy instead of any valid arguments.

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes; providing for the common Defense and general Welfare, requires redistribution of income.

You're an idiot, the military isn't redistribution of income

Projecting much? Our military proves communism works.

It is all the right wing has; nothing but comedic fantasy instead of any valid arguments.

Your inane drivel shtick is getting pretty tired

 

[danielpalos]

Yes; providing for the common Defense and general Welfare, requires redistribution of income.

You're an idiot, the military isn't redistribution of income

Projecting much? Our military proves communism works.

It is all the right wing has; nothing but comedic fantasy instead of any valid arguments.

Your inane drivel shtick is getting pretty tired

you wouldn't say that if i were practicing full body massage with happy ending.

 

[my2¢]

I'm no lawyer but I'd guess the Sixteenth Amendment pretty much gives them carte blanche.

 

[Rustic]

The federal government has one goal, Line the pocketbooks of its career politicians. And fuck over the successful...