Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[OKTexas]

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)).

Wrong, the Supreme Court has denied the tax payer the right to sue the feds for violating the Constitution by inappropriate spending, saying the individual can't have suffered sufficient harm to give them standing.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

In a way - yes. It's called taxation. Look at Burger King (the latest corporation to abandon the US). 40% Corporate taxes. The HIGHEST in the world. This has been Obama's plan all along. Raise the corporate tax structure to the point that business leaves this country - as it is - then make the slaves (er...people) completely dependent on Uncle Sugar. HE decides how much "re-distribution" takes place in America.

He'll be gone soon and perhaps we can get back to a business friendly environment in this country and business will return.

Ignorant tool. Corp tax rate is 35% THOUGH that's the marginal rate, tax burden (EFFECTIVE) is around 12% lowest in 40+ years


US ACTUAL TAX RATE IN INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD IS ONLY LOWER FOR MEXICO AND CHILE

 

[Dad2three]

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.

SCOTUS SAID YES, YES, GAWWWWD YES...

 

[Dad2three]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

 

[Dad2three]

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

The propaganda used to sell or not, the US Constitution? lol

 

[Little-Acorn]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

So if Franklin contradicted the Constitution, who is wrong? Franklin? Or the Constitution?

(Hint: Franklin's private correspondence is not law, but the Constitution IS law.)

 

[OKTexas]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

 

[Dad2three]

Link?

Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite



In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

 

[Dad2three]

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL me what it is?

 

[OKTexas]

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

The propaganda used to sell or not, the US Constitution? lol

Written by the same men who wrote and debated the Constitution, of course they would have no freaking clue what they were talking about, right? You have just destroyed any credibility you might have ever had.

 

[OKTexas]

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL me what it is?

Post the whole letter and we can discuss it.

 

[Dad2three]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets .... They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their (government's) Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed ... seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-- letter to Robert Morris, Dec. 25, 1783

Property Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

 

[Dad2three]

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

The propaganda used to sell or not, the US Constitution? lol

Written by the same men who wrote and debated the Constitution, of course they would have no freaking clue what they were talking about, right? You have just destroyed any credibility you might have ever had.

So you don't know it WAS propaganda like today's political advertising? I'm not surprised!

 

[Politico]

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.

In a way - yes. It's called taxation. Look at Burger King (the latest corporation to abandon the US). 40% Corporate taxes. The HIGHEST in the world. This has been Obama's plan all along. Raise the corporate tax structure to the point that business leaves this country - as it is - then make the slaves (er...people) completely dependent on Uncle Sugar. HE decides how much "re-distribution" takes place in America.

He'll be gone soon and perhaps we can get back to a business friendly environment in this country and business will return.

Again Burger King is not going anywhere. Turn off the bobbleheads.

 

[Dad2three]

So if Franklin contradicted the Constitution, who is wrong? Franklin? Or the Constitution?

(Hint: Franklin's private correspondence is not law, but the Constitution IS law.)

Contradicted? Is that what SCOTUS has said? lol

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[OKTexas]

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets .... They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their (government's) Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed ... seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-- letter to Robert Morris, Dec. 25, 1783

Property Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

Written almost 6 years before the Constitution was completed, what does that have to do with this thread, which is questioning "Constitutionality" of a specific act.

 

[Dad2three]

The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes.

–Noah Webster

Gotcha Comrade, all money is the people's money, so not taking someone's money is giving them money. LOL, sure it is.

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

He wasn't talking about the federal government, why didn't you give us the whole context?

"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets .... They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their (government's) Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed ... seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-- letter to Robert Morris, Dec. 25, 1783

Property Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

Written almost 6 years before the Constitution was completed, what does that have to do with this thread, which is questioning "Constitutionality" of a specific act.

Weird, I presented PART of the quote, you implied it wasn't relevant, then asked for the full letter, when SHOWN IT DEALT WITH THE FEDERAL GOV'T, YOU NOW QUESTION IT? lol Typical



Weird you don't know how many years the Founders questioned the Articles of Confederation and MANY advocated for a STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T (Like Madison's wanting BIG Federal Gov't to be able to veto ALL states laws, at will)...


THE CONSTITUTIONALITY HAS BEEN RULED OVER AND OVER ON THIS 'SPECIFIC ACT', AND YOU ARE ON THE LOSING SIDE

 

[AntiParty]

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.

I voted "yes" because I unlike you understand the principle we are discussing here.

The PEOPLE have the right to vote yes on taxation no matter what the issue and all taxation is a redistribution of wealth. Sometimes we benefit from it, sometimes we don't. But in balance, we should benefit from it most of the time.

I know the Libertarian and Tea Party bias political noobs want to think we aren't allowed to vote for " 3 meals a day for a blind person" but sorry to burst your bubble, We The People can.

Not it's time for these parties to discuss if they want to vote for the spending on the actual issues, or want to police the people that take advantage of a flawed system driven by bias idiots that are unwilling to close loopholes and want to Nix it instead of Fix it......

MANY Americans along with me voted to provide meals for blind people and deaf people. It's time for you to stop attacking with a blanket approach and understand the American Constitution.

THE PEOPLE RUN AMERICA, NOT YOU, NOT THE CONSTITUTION. If the people want change, they can Change the Constitution, let's not let it come to that. Let's use some common sense first. ..

(Also, curious why people still don't know the Constitution can change and why people think Government Controls people and not the People controlling government....)

 

[saveliberty]

The Federalist Papers are a window into what the thought process was and given to the population to promote support for the soon to be Constitution. TO dismiss them is purely an attempt ( a poor one) to redefine the Constitution into something it is not.

 

[kaz]

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.

Um...the 16th says government can take income, where does it say it can hand it out to someone else?