Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[kaz]

So what is the judicial decision that has said redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional?
Might check the Supreme Court decisions made during 1937 when the Court said taxes can be used for any social purpose as long as they promote the General Welfare. And what restrictions has the Court placed on the words: general welfare? If taxes were being used inappropriately under the General Welfare clause you can bet it would have been before the Court long before this.
And as Justice Hughes has said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.

Cool. Care to answer the question?

 

[kaz]

Every nation has a system for redistributing the wealth, try to find a nation without a system. After the Revolution we were a confederacy with 13 governments, and a central government with no powers except the power to appeal to those 13 governments for help. The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare. During the Lincoln administration the Republican Congress added an income tax and finally the Constitution was amended making the income tax Constitutional.

You seem to have forgotten that the framers said specifically in Article 1, Section 8 what federal endeavors were consistent with the "general welfare", none of them included giving money to a citizen that wasn't for services rendered.

That was left up to Congress.
They can give money for small business subsidies, farm subsidies, R&D....even poor or disabled folks

All under general welfare

Congress can only Constitutionally spend money on enumerated Federal powers. Where is redistribution of wealth enumerated?

 

[kaz]

They don't directly pay kaz. The money goes from taxpayer A to the US Treasury, then it is appropriated by Congress to Federal programs which in turn send it to state programs. At that point the state screens recipients and distributes. I assume this is all a way of circumnavigating the Constitution.

A distinction without a difference. Where does the Constitution give the authority to give money directly to any individual?

 

[OKTexas]

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.

The Constitution is a centrist document, not a leftist document. The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were not exempt from the larger American principles and conventions. That is, terminology was established and understood before the Constitution was even drafted.

That it would be a living document was an idea not seriously considered by the left until the Progressive Era.

The general welfare did not refer to the enrichment of some at the expense of others.

The question isn't about "taxes" it's about "redistribution of wealth." That is referring to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. It is not saying government cannot tax for the general good, like the military and courts that all have equal access too. I thought people realized that, maybe not. I'll edit my post to make that clear.

your attempt to split the general good from welfare payments has no basis in any law I know of. The legislative system determines what the country thinks the general welfare is and at some point Congress thought welfare payments met the general interests of society. On the tax side the 16th amendment authorizes progressive taxes.

The Constitution is a centrist document, not a leftist document. The delegates at the Philadelphia Convention were not exempt from the larger American principles and conventions. That is, terminology was established and understood before the Constitution was even drafted.

That it would be a living document was an idea not seriously considered by the left until the Progressive Era.

The general welfare did not refer to the enrichment of some at the expense of others.

Every nation has a system for redistributing the wealth, try to find a nation without a system. After the Revolution we were a confederacy with 13 governments, and a central government with no powers except the power to appeal to those 13 governments for help. The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare. During the Lincoln administration the Republican Congress added an income tax and finally the Constitution was amended making the income tax Constitutional.

You seem to have forgotten that the framers said specifically in Article 1, Section 8 what federal endeavors were consistent with the "general welfare", none of them included giving money to a citizen that wasn't for services rendered.

That was left up to Congress.
They can give money for small business subsidies, farm subsidies, R&D....even poor or disabled folks

All under general welfare

Show me in the federalist or anti-federalist papers that will back up your claim. No hurry I'll wait.

The Federalist Papers are letters to the editor and have no powers.

You're right, the are letters written by the framers to explain to the people what the Constitution meant, to aid in ratification. There are additional letters written by Jefferson, Madison and others addressing the "general welfare clause". You seem to be buying into the theory that the only thing that matters in Article 1, Section 8 is Clause 1 and Clause 18, everything else is frivolous wasted type. I doubt the framers would agree.

 

[whitehall]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

 

[Little-Acorn]

why don't you admit the federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure?

It does... accompanied by an explicit ban that I have already pointed out. The so-called "Welfare Clause" says that Congress can only spend money on programs that benefit all Americans equally. Taking money from one, simply to give it to another, violates that ban, and so is forbidden by the Constitution.

I don't blame you for ignoring this fact, since it destroys your argument. Honesty is hard to come by in some people.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The framers dropped the Articles as unworkable and created a central government with the power to tax for the general welfare.

Nice try.

But the clause mentioning "General Welfare", did so to distinguish it from "local welfare", which was the other kind recognized in the late 1700s. It meant that govt could only spend money on programs that would help all Americans equally, not on programs that would help only some Americans (that was left to the states).
The Federal government taking money from some people and giving it directly to others (the topic of this thread) is flatly unconstitutional.

That doesn't stop the liberals from trying to do it anyway, of course. Their entire agenda is based on doing that, to buy votes they couldn't otherwise get.

 

[dblack]

The more important question is, do we want government to have that kind of power? Is it a good idea?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The more important question is, do we want government to have that kind of power? Is it a good idea?

And that more important question deserves its own thread.

Please don't hijack this one.

 

[rdean]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

No shit...it's been redistributed UP for the last 30 or so years...

Exactly.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

No shit...it's been redistributed UP for the last 30 or so years...

Exactly.

So if someone has been violating the Constitution for the last 30 years, that makes it OK to violate the Constitution?

The fact remains that it is unconstitutional for the Fed govt to take money from one person simply to give it to another, for the reasons I have pointed out several times in this thread (and no one has refuted).

 

[OKTexas]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

To promote is not to provide for, there is a difference.

 

[dblack]

The more important question is, do we want government to have that kind of power? Is it a good idea?

And that more important question deserves its own thread.

Please don't hijack this one.

Piss off. It's perfectly relevant to the discussion and informs the entire debate. Ultimately, either through interpretation or amendment, the Constitution will mean what we want it to mean. If we don't have meaningful consensus that economic freedom is important, it won't matter much what the founders originally intended.

 

[whitehall]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

To promote is not to provide for, there is a difference.

Regardless of the FF intent, a hundred years later the people authorized the federal government to establish a system for the redistribution of wealth when the 16th Amendment was ratified.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No shit...it's been redistributed UP for the last 30 or so years...

Keeping more of the money you earn is not a "redistribution" of any kind and certainly not a redistribution upwards.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Moreover, the 10th Amendment places no restrictions on Congress when acting in accordance with its Constitutional powers:

"The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the National Government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end."

United States v. Darby LII Legal Information Institute

And when citizens perceive Congress to have acted in a manner neither appropriate nor plainly adapted to the permitted end, they are at liberty to petition their elected representatives in Congress to repeal or amend such an act, or failing that, file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where the Supreme Court makes a final determination as to whether Congress has acted in accordance with the powers afforded it by the Constitution.

Last, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, acts of Congress presumed to be necessary, proper, and Constitutional (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000)).

 

[Little-Acorn]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

To promote is not to provide for, there is a difference.

Regardless of the FF intent, a hundred years later the people authorized the federal government to establish a system for the redistribution of wealth when the 16th Amendment was ratified.

No, the 16th gave it the power to place a direct tax on incomes. No more, no less.

It did not affect the Welfare Clause's ban on spending that tax money (or any other money) on programs that only affected some Americans - the ban that makes redistributing wealth unconstitutional.

 

[dblack]

Last, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, acts of Congress presumed to be necessary, proper, and Constitutional (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000)).

Presumed by whom?

 

[dblack]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

To promote is not to provide for, there is a difference.

Regardless of the FF intent, a hundred years later the people authorized the federal government to establish a system for the redistribution of wealth when the 16th Amendment was ratified.

No, the 16th gave it the power to place a direct tax on incomes. No more, no less.

It did not affect the Welfare Clause's ban on spending that tax money (or any other money) on programs that only affected some Americans - the ban that makes redistributing wealth unconstitutional.

It also didn't negate government's equal protection responsibility. Regardless of the fact that the power to tax is authorized, it does not empower the government to use taxation to violate our protected rights. It should not allowed to use the tax 'structure' to violate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal protection, or arbitrarily punish or reward specific interest groups at the pleasure of Congress.

 

[OKTexas]

The FF listed the duties of the federal government in two sentences "to provide for the common defense" and "to promote the general welfare". The 16th Amendment gave the federal government the right to redistribute wealth.

To promote is not to provide for, there is a difference.

Regardless of the FF intent, a hundred years later the people authorized the federal government to establish a system for the redistribution of wealth when the 16th Amendment was ratified.

You're full of it, where in the 16th does it say that taxes can be used for anything other than the enumerated powers? Before you say anything go read Article 9, Clause 4.